My approach to stop the ever increasing number of boats is so simple, the boats are nearly all going to Christmas island and a few to Cocos Island which are much much closer to Indonesia than Australia and have no value to Australia. So why not give the Islands to Indonesia, problem solved. Very few of those boats would be capable of reaching the Australian mainland. What do others think.

@Philips,

<<So why not give the Islands to Indonesia, problem solved. Very few of those boats would be capable of reaching the Australian mainland. What do others think>>

All that would mean would be greater revenue for Garuda or Malaysian airlines ---how so?

The moment you ceded Cocos Island and Christmas Islands.
Garuda and or Malaysian airlines would extend their routes to accommodate the new territories.

Then the “asylum seekers” would fly into Cocos or Christmas Island.
Where upon they would ditch their papers , don poor-me clothing and boat the rest of the way to OZ.

What would be your response if some enterprising people smugglers in South America or Africa started landing their clients in Tasmania?

If we persisted with your strategy pretty soon all Ozzies would be relegated to Pinchgut island in the middle of Sydney Harbour : http://tinyurl.com/c8s84zw

I don't think much of the idea.
They used to go to Ashmore Reef but changed to Christmas Island because
it has better facilities.
They are quite capable of reaching the mainland anyway.
At least with Christmas Island we know where they are and are not wandering around in NW Western Australia.

The thought is of huge value.
If as it looks it is to make us laugh.
Indonesia , not the home of these people, would not take them.
If they did? we would be giving them Darwin next?

Perhaps we should have given Nauru and Christmas Island over to the Americans for their little war games, rather than hosting them on the mainland .... ;)

Why not stop invading their countries illegally and let them prosper?Then there would be no need to come here.

Philip sorry I was abrupt in my post.
However welcome, and do not mind arjay,he is our conspiracy believer.

>Belly< Philip sorry I was abrupt in my post.
However welcome, and do not mind arjay,he is our conspiracy believer.<

Belly as usual your input is staid in a faction...what the faction decrees Belly faithfully regurgitates. Good to see you have not changed tiger.

Phillip your idea is not a solution. The solution is to re introduce temporary protection visas and off shore processing and then the influx will stop in six months, because that is how far you have to pay up and book ahead with the smugglers. Arjay has given the holistic solution to the issue. If there is no physical or psychological need to come to a strange land that embraces a strange tongue the PEOPLE would not come.
Yes PEOPLE, because that is what the cargo is and they are looking for a better life because the bankers who have controlled the global economy for the past two hundred years plundered and pillaged their resources over the last century. Did you know Oil Company deals done in the early twentieth century only expired in the 1970’s. That is when the Arabs and other second world countries formed OPEC. The only problem was that the money who owned those leases now owned the market, so OPEC screwed them as best they could but the money just passed he costs to the consumer.

The people who come are not the criminals, our governments and the money that dictates to them is. Just to qualify my position, no paperwork, no entry.

Phillip, Arjay is worth listening to, he may not be right on all things but he is a load closer than Belly has ever got.

errr Arjay,
I notice that the bombings are still going on in Iraq.
The Iraqis said the bombings were because the Americans were there.
The Iraqis said yesterday that the bombings are happening because the
Americans have left !

Typical Arab logic !

Bazz, the yanks have not left, they never leave. If they are not using their own troops as marionettes they are controlling the strings of those in power. There is no such thing as job over, let’s go home.

Why not just get rid of the ALP Government ? Problem diminished drastically !

Bazz you are quite right.
The gentleman is so anti America he nearly gets it right about once in every hundred posts, nearly but not.

I’m with Belly.

Neither US (or any Western forces) are in Iran yet huge numbers of our economic migrants are emanating from Iran.
“More than 40 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat in the past year were Iranians …’These are people who are not regarded as refugees. Two-thirds are regarded as not genuine refugees’” http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/more-than-a-thousand-iranians-risk-languishing-for-years-in-detention/story-e6freuy9-1226180501361
(and, even under our feeble checks they don’t qualify!)

Neither US (or any Western forces) are in Sri Lanka --or INDIA –as most Tamils are coming from now!
“Ponmalar was among the 150 hapless Sri Lankan Tamils who were been lured by an agent with an offer to clandestinely ‘sail off’ to another continent so that she could start a new life Down Under and earn in dollars so that her family could live in comfort”
http://newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/article537787.ece

So unless you subscribe to the Arjay –Poirot world conspiracy theory, Western “bombing” had/has nothing to do with it

"...the Arjay-Poirot world conspiracy theory..."

Correction - it's the Arjay world conspiracy theory. My concern is more from a humanitarian viewpoint.(notwithstanding refugees caused by the "Iraqi invasion")

Western “bombing” had/has nothing to do with it.
SPQR,
YEP ! It's just so disheartening to witness the blindness of the bleeding heart brigade who fail to comprehend the agenda of this pseudo refugee crisis. It's nothing more than an anti-west religion driven crusade. Some genuine refugees are thrown in to throw off our blinded authorities and presto, we're invaded without a single shot fired.

Oh I see son of SonofGloin, there are a handful of Americans still
there as "advisors or something" so the Sunnis are bombing the Shiites.

Hmmm, yes typical Arab logic.
You must be an Arab with that sort of logic.

Bazz,
Arab Logic, if you hadn't been in the country you couldn't have parked your car there & no one could have run into it where it was parked. It's your fault !

The problem with these people from the third world is they just don't appreciate all the wonderful things we (America and its allies such as Australia) do for them. We invade their country. Kill a couple of million, take anything of value they have, oil is a good one. In return we give them a s%&t load of freedom and democracy, just look at the wonderful job we have done in Iran and Afghanistan, they are overflowing with freedom and democracy at this very moment. Then some of them, about 0.001% who have the capacity to do so, have the audacity to want to make a better life for themselves and their family's by trying to reach a prosperous place, untouched by war, like Australia. Do we welcome them with open arms, No, we have a bun fight as how best to get rid of them. Please show a bit of humanity towards your fellow man.
An atheist quoting the bible:
Matthew 25:35 "for I was hungry and you gave Me food," etc etc
Worth the lesson.

Bazz>>Oh I see son of SonofGloin, there are a handful of Americans still there as "advisors or something" so the Sunnis are bombing the Shiites.<<

If you think that the yanks want to stop the religious faction fighting you must be dreaming Bazz.

So, let me get this straight;
If there were zero Americans in Iraq the Sunnis would stop bombing
the Shiites, right ?

If so would then the Shiites start bombing the Sunnis ?

How did you get yourself into that tangle ?

Errr, Paul 1405,

I couldn’t help but notice this comment of yours.

<<Then some of them, about 0.001% who have the capacity to do so, have the audacity to want to make a better life for themselves and their family's by trying to reach a prosperous place, untouched by war, like Australia. Do we welcome them with open arms, No, we have a bun fight as how best to get rid of them>>

It has obviously escaped your notice but the Refugee Convention was never intended to be used as a cover/excuse for persons seeking to “reach a prosperous place”!

And it wasn’t even intended to be used as an out for person seeking to reach a place “untouched by war”!

It is pretty damning that you (and apparently the rest of the Greens) see it this way, and are prepared to turn a blind eye and rubber stamp the entry of anyone who cries poor.

SPQR

One can cover oneself with as many articles from a Merdoch fish wrapper like The Telegraph or even hide behind the words of the Convention on the Status of Refugees, and all the pursuant protocols that apply to this rather weighty legal document. All the time denying any culpability as to the plight of the peoples of the third world.
Australia has both humanitarian and legal obligations to people who arrive on our shores, an obligation to provide for them until their status has been established. The Greens is the only political party that has detailed policies that covers these obligations. The policies of both the Labor and Liberal parties is inhumane towards asylum seekers. The Greens believe asylum seekers are an Australian problem and will not support 'off shore processing' in a third world country.

Paul1405,
Australia has obligations re refugees. OK, will it show the same consideration towards it's own people when the pseudo refugees start taking over ? What will the Greens do when the crap hits the fan ? Any policies on that ?

@Paul 1405,

Oh well, it seems we have found the main reason why we can’t stop the illegals.

Apparently the Green’s believe that anyone who wants “to reach a prosperous place” can use the Refugee Convention as a pretext/excuse.

They see the Refugee Convention as JUST ANOTHER AVENUE TO IMMIGRATION..

So literally anyone who wants “to reach a prosperous place” can land on our shores and cry poor and the Greens will rubber stamp them “found to be genuine”( even it seems if they own three of four retail outlets in metropolitan Kuala Lumpur and moonlight as a people smuggling kingpin!)

So you see, PhilipS, it makes not an iota of difference whether we exorcise Cocos Island, Christmas Island and half of WA.
We are not going to stop the illegals till we remove the Greens and like minded Pollyanna's from positions of influence —and hopefully we will go a major part of the way towards doing that, at the next election!

One thing I must give our conservative brethren, their thinking never changes. In my grandfathers day, and he would be a little over 120 if he was alive today, the conservatives were saying; "we must protect ourselves from the 'yellow peril'", hence the White Australia Policy. Here we are in the year 2012 and the conservatives are still peddling the same line, with comments like:

"consideration towards it's own people when the pseudo refugees start taking over."

I take it our own people are white middle class Anglo Saxon males, would not want to be seen 'protecting' Asians from Asians, those pseudo Australians will just have to hide in their Chinese restaurants and ride out the invading storm. All I can suggest to the hard core conservative is, join National Action, if you have not already done so, get out granddads WWI uniform, and put it on, if you have not already done so, find the old mans 303, and start filling sand bags. Be prepared my son, be prepared. Disregard the fact that conservatives have been pushing the line "the Asian hordes are on their way," for the past 150 years in Australia, and disregard our humanitarian and legal obligations, just man the trenches, and wait.

@Paul1405,

One thing I must give people like Paul is , they never need to think for themselves,
they merely repeat the same old clichés their party has fed them,
and endeavour to live out fairy stories their grandfathers have read them!

<<white middle class Anglo Saxon males, would not want to be seen 'protecting' Asians from Asians, those pseudo Australians will just have to hide in their Chinese restaurants and ride out the invading storm. >>

Sorry to disillusion you Paul, BUT many of those “Asians” who you pretend to be represent , are equally concerned about the state of our border protection --and they are no more welcoming of illegals than their “anglo” colleagues.

A lot of good replies, will pass that idea to the rubbish bin for the moment.
Have to reply to Paul1405
quote " disregard our humanitarian and legal obligations " there is a lot I could say here time does not permit, except to say don't you think Australia has a legal and moral duty to look after there own people first. 1) how many homeless Australians are there "thousands" How many homeless refugees in Australia "none" They get preferential treatment.
quote "Please show a bit of humanity towards your fellow man" Will you be saying the same thing after a few thousand more arrive and to support them your taxes go up and your pension is reduced. Remember of 8500 people accepted under our humanitarian program - 85% of refugees still on Centrelink benefits after being here 5 years.

Philip>> Remember of 8500 people accepted under our humanitarian program - 85% of refugees still on Centrelink benefits after being here 5 years.<<

Phil we have to be careful not to blame the immigrants. The post 1970's immigration influx predominantly comes from second and third world nations. Their only attributes are that they are alive and moving, they are factory fodder as are all people Anglo or immigrant if they have no skills. The problem is we have no factories left. The blame has to go to successive governments and public servants who fell to the bidding of U. N. protocols.

When the factories went and we needed a technocratic class of refugees, we got laborers. In fact our immigration department made it about as hard as a granite wall to get into Australia if you were not uneducated, and if you were technology literate we wiped you early in the process, we didn’t want your kind around here…nothing has changed..

On the issue of asylum seekers my position is clear, I support Greens policy. The position is quite clear, any person arriving at our door, be it at Christmas Island or Kingsford Smith Airport and claiming refugee status, has to be respected. With such arrivals Australia must meet both its humanitarian and international legal obligations. We are required to house, feed and cloth such people until their status has been determined. Due to the time it often takes to process these people and if they do not pose a threat to the wider community then they should put placed in the general community until their status has been determined.
Asylum seekers arriving in leaky boats is not to be encouraged, in fact we should do our best to discouraged it, but it is understandable why people are prepared to undertake such a perilous journey. Australia needs to work with other governments to do our best to deal with the international problem of refugees. For political reasons both the Labor and Liberal parties want 'off shore processing', simply to appease the outcry from the conservatives in society who think asylum seekers should be treated as criminals, an out of sight out of mind policy, only later to sneak the vast majority back into Australia in a jumbo jet.

Paul1405,
Your great grandfather was right after all, you're just too academic to see it all. Unless of course you think Australia has changed for the better in the past few decades.

Paul1405 "Asylum seekers arriving in leaky boats is not to be encouraged, in fact we should do our best to discouraged it, but it is understandable why people are prepared to undertake such a perilous journey."

Great, to see you venture from your cosy shell at last, Paul1405.

So, how do discourage arrival by leaky boat? The Greens solution, if it is not to provide a free shuttle-service, is at least to decriminalize shuttling asylum seekers in the hope better boats and crews will result and minimize risk. Good so far, now let's have two groups of asylum seekers, one processed through the refugee camps of the world and another arriving on shuttle boats requiring processing. Who is going to wait languishing for years in camps? If it is clear there is no barrier to entry, ant trails will end at our door from all over the world, facilitated by private operators, governments, the UN and Greens.

Of course what a wonderful thing this would be for Australia's future. Millions arriving to serve our nation, unfettered by the need for documentation, just pull up a chair at the table we have prepared, no limit to numbers.

But wait, Paul1405 writes, "Australia needs to work with other governments to do our best to deal with the international problem of refugees." Could that mean stop wars, famine, disaster, poverty so refugees won't exist? Or, does it mean the Malaysian solution, which with UN blessing, can actually save Australia from becoming a human dumping ground?

Who knows? Greens clearly haven't thought past their noses about the problem. All they know is how they feel, which is sorry for asylum seekers. Well guess what, Paul1405, so is Labor, so why don't you get together with an electable solution quickly before you're annihilated at the next election for your detachment from reality

Will the conservatives please post their solution to the immediate problem of asylum seekers, and to the wider problem of refugees world wide? If all you can offer is some simplistic solution to a complex problem, then you may well be barking up the wrong tree. Where do you see Australia fitting into the 'big picture'?

Why expect anything from conservatives under Abbott? The plan to stop boats by naval force and maintain an annual intake from refugee camps is simplistic, sure, but electable when the even more simplistic idea of throwing the borders open to all-comers without limit is the opposing option. Greens have split the Labor vote so the Malaysian solution under an absolute Labor majority is an impossibility.

Under a possible coalition led minority government, Greens can remain in the same stymieing position, denying the majority will on border control and immigration.

Luciferase, The Greens have made their position on off shore processing quite clear, we do not support it, the voters can past judgement on that. Unfortunate Labor and the Coalition chose to play political football with the whole asylum seeker issue. Abbott has no concern for asylum seekers what so ever, he is far more interested in a game of political point scoring. I don't believe either Gillard or Abbott have a humanitarian bone in their bodies. Then again Abbott is a product of Howard and his children overboard lie.

OK Paul1405, that's the Greens position, no offshore processing and no limits on the number coming in just a welcome mat to anybody who can get here by any means without ID and just a story, with everybody given the benefit of the doubt.

We are a relatively wealthy country made wealthy by a few million people. Our ability to assimilate (at all levels) the growing numbers Greens' policy will attract is is a concern to the majority of Australians, I believe, and they will vote accordingly.

Luciferase, You distort the Greens policy on refugees with the simplistic line,
"no offshore processing and no limits on the number coming in just a welcome mat to anybody."
That is not the case at all, a policy that has no less than 37 points is not that simplistic. If you think, the be all and end all to the worlds or even Australia's refugee problems is simply off shore processing, then you are, as I said, barking up the wrong tree. Unfortunately Labor and the Coalition persist with playing the race card, happy to play political football with peoples lives and then look for a scapegoat in the Greens. "Those nasty Greens wont let us hide those asylum seeker in Siberia, boo, hoo as they cry more crocodile tears. As I asked previously. What is your answer to the question of refugees for the world and Australia? the conservatives will continue to be silent on this question as they have no viable answer.

Paul 1305,
There is a system in place.
It is set at a reasonable level.
There is a limit to what Australia can and should do.

Those that arrive without documents and on the boats have lost what
rights they may ever had by their actions.
They have made such a mess of their own countries that they think they
can just force themselves into other countries.

Before you do, don't just blame the Americans, it is not as simple as that.
Let them put their effort into fixing their own countries.

I am fed up with the bleating that goes on about this subject.

Paul 1405,

You have misrepresented the issues (or maybe you simply do not understand them!)

Problem No. 1
The Refugee Convention is increasingly being abused as a pretext/excuse to (in your words) “ reach a prosperous place”.
This was never the purpose of the Refugee Convention . And the airy-fairy “37 point …policy” you allude to offers no solution
[ it/they are akin to solving heroine addiction by giving the addict easier and easier access to heroine].
Even if in some Pollyanna fantasy we were able to stop all wars tomorrow and have democratic regimes in all countries, we would still see people drawn from less prosperous to more prosperous locations i.e. still illegal immigration.
(though, I will concede that such might NOT be the case if Bob Brown had his wish and implemented world govt and a redistributed of wealth –if that occurred we would likely all languish is similar despair…no one would want to do anything … nor go anywhere)

Problem No. 2
Events are showing that our screening processes are unable to determine who is a “genuine refugee”.
( the latest Four Corner revelations are not new , and they are not the exception –they are just the tip of the iceberg!)

Problem No. 3
We have groups – most notably the Green – who behind the smoke screen of conservation and social justice ( which has some merit , and which are appealing to many) are seeking to slip in harebrained polices that will see immigration controls water down further –including the most harebrained of all schemes-- opening the doors to anyone affected by a storm or high tide ie “climate refugees”.

Paul1405, you say I misrepresent Greens policy. How so? Do you really think some wafty statement about getting at the root cause of the refugee problem in your 37 point list has a bat's chance in hell of flying, that holding your current line until that great day arrives passes as sensible policy?

Greens are dreamers. The world needs dreamers, but not to run countries. Please stop screwing up ours with your stymieing of the majority will.

Luciferase, Paul1405, you say I (Luciferase) misrepresent Greens policy. How so?

What I said was; "Luciferase, You distort the Greens policy on refugees with the simplistic line,
"no offshore processing and no limits on the number coming in just a welcome mat to anybody."

Where is the distortion, Paul1405? I'm just following your policy through to its inescapable conclusion.

Australia's resources (and I don't mean simply physical) are finite but Greens' policy has no sensible horizon nor balance in its treatment of refugees from different origins, only some view that one day the world will be a better place and there will be no refugees.

I'd like to retract what I said in my previous post about stymeing the majoriy will. I forget that that is Greens policy and they are only being true to themselves. What I should have said was that Greens should give over to the greater public will on this issue for their own survival to maintain a hand in future public policy, but you have made it clear you want to be judged by the electorate on your current position.

Babes in the woods, but I'm sure Bob Brown is proud of his lemmings.

Paul1405 writes, "Luciferase, You distort the Greens policy on refugees with the simplistic line,
"no offshore processing and no limits on the number coming in just a welcome mat to anybody""

If my statement is a distortion, would you please expand, explaining how dangerous boat journeys will be discouraged, or even jetloads of asylum-seekers for that matter, and how Greens policy will prevent the world's rufugees from beating paths to our door to blend into the population with a story and no documentation?

There was a trickle of boats, now a stream, and the pressure is rising. Last month enough arrived to fill the newly built ($130 million) facility in Northam, Western Australia. How much can resourcing can be put towards processing the growing influx? Meanwhile, refugee camps around the world are growing, so the problem is not going away in our lifetimes, or ever IMO.

I could go on, but please Paul1405, how is my statement a distortion? Why do Greens follow eachother as lambs to the electoral slaughter? Can't any of you stand up and question where all this is going, or is free speech a problem within Greens?

I think we should send the refugees to live with Kevin Rudd. He was the clown that removed the Pacific Solution that was working perfectly. Idealists and dreamers often do more harm than good especially when they have no practical understanding of what is happening.

Still waiting Paul1405 for you to put me straight on my supposed simplistic distortion of the 37 point Greens policy.

Stack it up against a Malaysian swap with UN blessing (and therefore the High Court's), which is what Labor would pursue but for Greens intransigence.

SILLER, the "Pacific solution", a euphemism for forcing boats away or removing passengers to an island, won't get up because the High Court won't let it

Luciferase,

I did say your line;
"no offshore processing and no limits on the number coming in just a welcome mat to anybody" was a simplistic distortion of Greens policy.
What you said is a half truth and simplistic. The half truth being "no offshore processing." The implication is this 'one liner' is a total summation of Greens policy on refugees. I said no, we have a complex and detailed 37 point policy, which does not imply a "welcome mat to anybody" I think later you changed your tack to say the 'welcome mat' was the inevitable conclusion of Greens policy.
The sticking point between the Greens and Labor on this issue is offshore processing. The claim the 'majority' support offshore processing is untested. There certainly are significant numbers who support both offshore and onshore processing.
I think Labor's Malaysian solution was hastily put together and ill conceived which was not in Australia's best interest. It did not comply with our humanitarian and legal obligations in regards to asylum seekers.
Abbotts opposition to Labors Malaysian solution was not based on any kind of morality as Abbott cynically made out. The offer of the pacific solution by the conservatives was simply a political ploy.

Not much of a defense there Paul1405.

Greens policy distils to laying out a welcome mat without sending an invitation, but that's the implicit message in the 37 points.

The message is, get here however you can and you will blended into the community on government assistance during the time it takes to process your asylum application based on zero documentation and a story, after which you are given the benefit of the doubt. Should by some misfortune you are denied then you begin the next stage of your stay with appeals then the court applications until granted residency.

There is no dissuasion from this path and there are no limits on the numbers who chose to take it. Yes, that's the UN position, but will the UN relieve Australia from the burden that is already developing due to the Greens policy being our current national de-facto policy?

Not a chance, we have to set our own limits, which is where the Greens position pivots.

We have to set our own limits and the blend (direct arrivals vs intake from worldwide camps). We don't get to set limits under the Greens policy as any mention of it blows their policy out of the water as something is required to be done about boat arrivals.

At the risk of starting another round of party political mantra, does no one have any USEFUL comments to make about the latest tragedy unfolding off Christmas Island today?

I find it incredible that while we bicker amongst ourselves about who has the best policy, nothing is being done to improve the situation.

God help those people, because we certainly haven't.

Scribbler,
The unfortunate part is if they are from the Middle East or
Afghanistan they may not have had any knowledge of the sea and could
not recognise the unseaworthiness of the vessel they were boading.

If they were from Sri Lanka there should have been someone there to
warn about the boat.

"I find it incredible that while we bicker amongst ourselves about who has the best policy, nothing is being done to improve the situation."

The UNHCR asks the same question of Australia and its neighbours, expecting a regional solution.

Greens will shift position only in the direction of facilitating safer boat journeys encouraging asylum seekers to journey here to blend into the community while their applications are positively assessed.

The onshore and offshore components of Australia’s refugee program are numerically linked, meaning every time an onshore applicant is granted a protection visa, a place is deducted from the offshore program. Greens want this to cease thereby making the overall intake limitless but the major parties will not support this radical line.

Hence we're stuck in a default position which is a long way down the path of Greens policy and the boats increasingly come.

So it appears to remain until the next election where moderate Australians who saw no harm in voting Green will see the error of it and vote accordingly, giving one major party the absolute majority it needs to effect a solution.