Dear SPQR,

I don't quite understand your reference to
Howard, Costello and Co. and Mathew, Mark,
and John? Still today's Sunday - and perhaps
you had a very spiritually uplifting time in
church this morning. Although, I guess Mr Howard's
exploiting asylum seekers, as well as invading
Iraq - were major blemishes on his time in office
as well as his refusal to retire - which cost
his party the 2007 election.

As for your dig about "New Matilda," As someone
pointed out in an article on the web:
"It is a strange paradox that, while we live in a
torrent of information, there is such a limited
range of available views.

Media ownership in Australia is notoriously narrow.
Mainstream media offers precious little diversity,
and such diversity as there is runs along predictable
lines. The economics of print and electronic media
tend to drive opinion in the direction of populism.
This has unhappy results now that both major political
parties have, it seems, abandoned their founding
principles and form policies by reference to media
coverage generally and to news polls and focus groups
in particular.

And as mainstream traditional media is full of voices
(mostly strident) telling government what to do; so
social media are full of voices - even more numerous
and diverse, and even more strident - doing the same.

Those of us who are torn between the desert of
mainstream media and the jungle of the internet need a
place where rational but diverse views can be found
on matters of enduring importance."

"New Matilda," is such a place, It would be difficult to
agree with everything expressed in the columns of
"New Matilda," but at the same time it would be impossible
to criticise any of them as irrational or foolish."

cont'd ...

Back on topic.

In 2009, the largest number of asylum claims for an
industrialised country was experienced by the USA with
49,000 claims, followed by France with 42,000 claims and
Canada with 33,300.

6,500 claims were lodged in Australia and New Zealand
combined in 2009. In 2009, Australia received 6,170
asylum applications - just 1.6% of the 377,160
applications received across 44 independent nations.
Of the 44 pations Australia was ranked 16th overall and was
21st on a per capita basis.

People will always seek to move from poor unstable countries
to stable and rich ones. That will not change any time soon -
and it is time that we realised that people smuggling is
a regional problem and no matter what government will be
in power this problem will need to be addressed.
Personally I felt that a regional agreement with Malaysia
was a step in the right direction - because travelling all
the way to Australian waters and ending up back where you
started in Malaysia at great expense -
it would be discouraging
to repeat the process again - at great expense.

But if you're taken to Nauru - you're almost guaranteed to
end up in Australia.

Hi Lexi,

<< Australia received 6,170 asylum applications - just 1.6% >>
On per capita basis –a favourite measure of those on the left when it comes to AGW -- I’ll think you will find we rank quite high.

<<Of the 44 [n]ations Australia was ranked 16th overall and was>>
Yes, but AGAIN, few of those 44 (exemplary!) nations have any intention of ever granting their illegals full or permanent citizenship. Unlike (bleedin heart intimidated) OZ, which grants full citizenship to the “asylum seeker” (plus any number of their relos who may be still overseas) and welfare for life for one and all.

<<People will always seek to move from poor unstable countries to stable and rich ones. That will not change any time soon>>
Aye, that is the case. But it is important (and damning!) to remember that these people are seeking to move from richer to poorer under the guise of ‘asylum seeking’; they are USING THE REFUGEE CONVENTION AS THEIR PRETEXT!
It was never designed for that.

<<people smuggling is a regional problem>>
Taking in terms of it being a regional problem (or seeking regional solutions/agreements) only clouds the issue.
Our near neighbors (with the possible exception of NZ) have little interest in anything but fobbing the illegals off onto OZ : You give us 2,000 and we’ll give 12,000!

<<But if you're taken to Nauru - you're almost guaranteed to end up in Australia>>
We can do things on a more fundamental level to discourage the shonks:
1) The reintroduction of TPV’s is one , &
2) The oppositions announcement last night of a different approach to those without papers is another good one.

SPQR those arriving without papers do so for a reason.
It is very hard to prove who they are.
They in fact are stateless people if we can not.
But I agree, it is while not new a good policy.
Not kind not easy, but well worth while implementing.
Just as the Malaysian plan is all of that.
First bar for ever every no papers arrival UNLESS VERY SPECIAL succumb stances exist, true refugees not economic ones.
House them on an island under our control, permanently!
If after 5 years the scheme has stopped boats,offer them, each six months, air fair home, if they prove it was home.
I earn, and expect, contempt for my harsh views, but look at it this way.
Minority's want to over look the wishes of the majority, every time on this issue.
Explain to me as this is the case why stay with Democracy? if in effect we are over ruled every time?

Dear SPQR,

I prefer to deal with facts, not opinion based on -
untruths, myths, and spin.

I'm sure however that you will find losts of
kindred spirits who will support you on this forum.

Cheers.

The facts on the table are that with the pacific solution about 100 people came on boats per year. Under Labor's open borders we are getting closer to 5000 per year, and increasing.

For the problem of border control the solution is Pacific.