http://www.smh.com.au/national/dozens-feared-dead-as-packed-asylum-boat-capsizes-off-christmas-island-20120622-20rnz.html

As more women and children die we are left with too many questions:

Could the government prevented this?
What have they done to try?
What solutions are available now?

Kevin Kruddy Rudd is responsible for this!

This incident set a bad precedent the boats were in Indonesian waters and they are coordinating the rescue but the people are being bought to Australia. The Government is accepting people who are clearly Indonesia's responsibility, so much for trying to stop them now they are going out of there way to bring them here. This is going to cost many millions of dollars.

My thought exactly Phillip S.

As they were in the Indonesian zone, they should have been transported to Indonesia.

Then they would not only have not been in Oz, but their presence there, returning from a marine tragedy, just may have stopped a few from making the voyage themselves.

I'm going to say 'no' - we are not responsible, and our government could not have prevented it. Sure, there are undoubtedly measures that could have been taken to stop the flow of boats to Australia, but that would simply relocate the tragedy rather than prevent it.

Asylum seekers, like other migrants, are motivated by a combination of push and pull factors. The push factors prompt them to pack up and leave their homes; the pull factors merely dictate the destination. Had our government made Australia a less palatable destination, they would have diminished the pull factor, but the push factor would remain. The asylum seekers would have gone SOMEWHERE - either by boat or by land - and they would have taken a risk to get there. They might have drowned, they might have died of exposure, they might have been shot by vigilante border patrols (as happens to Zimbabweans trying to sneak through Boer country into the more hospitable parts of South Africa) or they may have suffered another grisly fate. Or they may have made it to their destination alive.

So, in short, the quality of life that we enjoy may well prompt people to want to join us, even at risk of extended mandatory detention and psychological damage. Short of diminishing that quality of life or drawing further international criticism for our allegedly 'inhumane' treatment of asylum seekers, we can't do much to make ourselves less attractive. And asylum seekers will still seek asylum somewhere, safely or otherwise.

Yes agreed, Philip and Hasbeen.

Thanks for pointing out the glaringly obvious, Philip, Hasbeen and Ludwig (and that's a sincere thanks). I'd been pondering the matter of helping out asylum seekers who hadn't even made it to our waters, but then got distracted and stopped thinking about that.

But Oto, it was that despicable Rudd character that opened up the wound that Howard had laboriously mended, and allowed onshore asylum seeking to flare up again. That was indescribably STUPID!

After the folly that we went through with this issue for several years starting in August 2001 with the Tampa, how could he have tampered with this legislation??.

It was just so totally uncalled for.

I would say that our government could definitely have prevented this, by implementing policies that strongly deterred onshore asylum seeking, as Howard did…. or by not f>cking around with Howard’s policies in the first place.

Really, Rudd is totally responsible for this mess… for these DEATHS, and previous deaths before this, by opening up the onshore asylum seeking debacle that Howard had decisively dealt with.

Yep, Kevin Rudd, the darling of Labor voters is responsible. Then so is Gillard and the rest of the Labor/Green/independants that comprise the present government. Not only responsible for this 100 or so deaths, but for the 700 others that died over the past few years trying to get here.

I really wonder how concerned they are, or is the PM just making noises?

I do not think much of the illegals because they are gate crashers who are taking advantage of our softness and generosity. They free load on us. But they could be stopped from coming simply by NOT giving them what they want.

So by putting out the welcome mat, our government is directly responsible for enticing them to their deaths.

I am not holding my hand up to be involved in dispute resolution with you folk.
IF you are right, and to some extent you are, how will that truth resolve this issue?
The high court ruled against a solution.
And in doing so we got unshakable warning, with out law changes Nehru could not be used.
Open debate, seems to have shown, almost every one sent to Nehru, then came here.
NO ONE was sent home, Some,VERY FEW, WENT HOME.
Australia runs last here in taking the blame.
How did they travel in Indonesian waters without being stopped.
What blame to the smugglers.
This time at least equipped with life saving gear SOME, they knew of the dangers.
Next GREENS lovers of life!contributed no less than Abbott lover of self, in these deaths.
Show me the answers to SMs questions.
What has DOCTOR NO done except swim in this issue?
And the Morris dancers Greens must be held up as killers of these folk for political gain too.
Do not forget, those human rights lawyers, this morning they know, they killed many that day.

I see this as a Siev X moment for Labor. Just as a boat sinking prompted Howard to stop the boats with the Pacific solution. Perhaps now Labor will be prompted to do the same.

The Pacific solution has been available to Labor for many months. Perhaps the blood on their hands will urge them to abandon their "anything but Nauru" thinking and implement a proven solution.

There are a couple of key points that need to be brought out here:

1) The boat first sought help when it was about 38 nautical miles from its Indonesian port.It was told to turn around and return to port. It ignored that advice and continued on to Christmas Island.

”On Tuesday… [the vessel]… was requesting assistance as one side of the hull was damaged and was taking in water… Australian authorities advised the boat's contact that if the damage was significant the safest course of action was to return to Indonesia [however it proceeded on towards Christmasd Island] Two days later and a suspected people smuggling boat is in trouble and a frantic search and rescue effort is launched.”
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3530834.htm

2)Another interview I heard late yesterday afternoon on Radio National revealed that a number of the “asylum seekers” had previously sought refugee status with the UNHCR but had not qualified. However, they still took it upon themselves to sail to OZ .Apparently anticipating that once they arrived in Oz without papers they would not be returned.

Belly,
One thing facing the truth may do is make the present government shoulder their responsibilities. They are to blame for this and it is up to them to fix it.

If they think the Malaysian scheme will stop the boats coming, then they have to convince their coalition partners (greens and independants) of that and get the legislation passed. Bills on other things have been passed.

The 'do nothing' situation at present is unacceptable.

The previous Nauru scheme is different to the Malaysia scheme in that we ran the detention at Nauru. There is no need for the detainees to end up in Aus, as before, anyway. If the government put tough enough measures in place, it will not take long to stop the boats.

Banjo,

<<If they think the Malaysian scheme will stop the boats coming, then they have to convince their coalition partners (greens and independants)>>

LOL

On evidence to hand it would appear that the Greens are not in slightest bit interested in stopping the boat.

SPQR,
The greens are Labors coalition partners and if they cannot get their support for Malaysia then the government should,if they have any integrity and consience, agree to the oppositions Pacific solution.

It does, after all, have a proven record of working.

Is not the idea to stop the boats from coming and therefore save lives.

I don't particularly care what becomes of a boatload of fit young Afghani men who pay for bus fares and a plane ticket to a stepping stone country then board a leaky boat to enter a sovereign nation illegally. Not to mention ditching their passports and personal identification along the way. Live or die I care for them to the same extent they care for the birthplaces they are leaving because they are financially able to do so. Do your worst Neptune.

When people are drowning they quite willingly pull their saviors under the water to sustain themselves, it’s a human reaction. But the factual reports of the men having the life jackets on the boat that hit the rocks at Xmas Island a few years back turned my stomach. No women or children had life jackets, just the fit young men...our type of people no doubt.

Shadow Minister>> I see this as a Siev X moment for Labor. Just as a boat sinking prompted Howard to stop the boats with the Pacific solution. Perhaps now Labor will be prompted to do the same.<<

PS
SM, for the sake of Jesus and Mohammad will you please stop alluding that there comes a point on any failed policy that Labor will concede they got it wrong! Or that the acolytes here on OLO will see facts as the relevant foundation of their pro Labor arguments. Everyone that I come into contact with who have responsibilities, that is, work to do, bills to pay, families to support or businesses to run are doing it tough and they all blame Labor. They don’t blame the GFC, or the poor European economy, or the basket case U.S economy, they see the policies of these Labor criminals draining the wealth of Australia and murdering any chance of a stable future for our domestic economy. The government has the mining boom and the people have the illegal’s boom. A boom that that keeps the bloodsucker lawyers and social engineers eating at waterfront restaurants while the ever suffering majority eats at the local burger shop.

Otokonoko >>I'm going to say 'no' - we are not responsible, and our government could not have prevented it. Sure, there are undoubtedly measures that could have been taken to stop the flow of boats to Australia, but that would simply relocate the tragedy rather than prevent it.<<

To patch a hole you need lots of stitches and Howards government contributed to those stitches. People do have a responsibility to cover their own behinds. We are not talking about the Jews of Europe bolting from Germany before and during WWII. These people pay for tickets and take their chances…some loose, and more will lose if we do not re patch our hole.

OK Rudd mucked it up,he did.
So SM and a host here want to ignore the rest.
If you imprison Kevin for it! we still need to fix it.
Abbott, and the greens, can over night!
Only LABOR HAS BACKED DOWN! offered Abbott his victory.
Nehru.
He is prepared to kill rather than resolve this issue!
History will be unkind to him.

'OK Rudd mucked it up,he did.'

Its a pity Belly that the PM would not humble herself a little for the sake of lives and admit that also. Her pigheadedness speaks a sermon in itself.

runner as you know I dislike Gillard.
You should no I feel sorry for you, and others here.
ALL are intent on ignoring the fact CONSERVATIVES are being bloody minded on this issue.
About 85% of us, both sides want an end to greens black mail.
It is in doc no power to fix this.

One of the absurd things about this is that so called ChristMass Island is only a few hundred clicks from Java.

Why the island isn't part of Indonesia is also absurd.

I read on WikiPedia that the incompetent, parasites in Canberra spent $AU400 million of tax payers money to install 800 beds on the isle. That's another good argument not to vote for either of the mainstream parties i.m.o.

Given there were also plans at one time to build a space port on the island one wonders if their are military facilities there as well? Hmmm .. maybe some guidance systems to track in a big one if we decide to let one off the chain and drive it into Jakarta? Thus, how far does our radar see, and how far does the Indo's radar see?

Given it is well known that there are lots of stateless people unwanted by Indonesia and desperate to get out and by any means necessary, why aren't there patrol boats in between waiting for them?

Thus, we are at least partially responsible for the disaster as we choose not be on duty and at the ready for the tragedies that we know are just waiting to happen.

But then, what else would you expect from scum who lock children up?

Dream on no answers will be found by such posts.
Fact is far too many do not agree with you.
Consider this, Malaysia/Indonesia are not asking these folk to enter their country's.
IF a regional solution came, both those country's too,would benefit as it became less likely such people would Transite in their country's.
IF human life matters more than politics more Liberals will join their brave member and out flank the Greens this week.
Labor should tell the Morris dancers we will implement the FULL HOWARD policy if they do not pass current two pronged plans.
In truth both party's should out flank the greens every time we can, or admit we fear them more than voter back lash

Otokonoko,
Would it not be far more desirable for people not to see the need for packing up & leaving ?
Apart of course from those who simply wish to live in different climate. Similar to my own situation. What is not similar is that I chose a country which had a background similar to mine. I did not choose to go to another country to live there & demand that that country bow to my every whim & try to change that country's culture. I did not come with an agenda to impose my religious views upon my hosts.
If people are so concerned about the boat peoples' plight then why not become involved in helping these people to rebuild their country instead of ruining this one ?
On one hand the do-gooders don't want coalition forces to bring down these dictatorships & on the other hand they're quite happy with having Australia being put under the same yoke of fanaticism.

Individual, that's exactly what I was alluding to. I took a fairly roundabout route to that allusion, though. As long as there are push factors driving people to want (or need) to leave their homelands, they're always going to go somewhere. Which is why I suggested that our government wasn't responsible for the deaths, though perhaps may have had a part to play in WHERE the deaths occurred.

Belly,
Now you are talking.

If Labor believe the Malaysia scheme will work, they should presure the Greens into accepting it. If that happens i would be quite willing to see how it goes. That is if the boats stop, even though I am not real happy in accepting the 4000 refugees from Malaya.

If not, then the government should try the Nauru and TPVs thing. As I have said before, the illegals are so convinced that we are stupid and soft, it may now take even tougher measures to stop the boats from coming.

I see there is to be an illegals advocates demo in Sydney. They reckon we should have done more to rescue the illegals and now they want us to provide escorts for the boats from Indonesia to Christmas Island. Next they will want a twice weekly air service free and direct.

Oto, I don't think push has anything to do with more than just a few boat arrivals. Even then I think if properly investigated, we would find that most of those pushed were actually wanted criminals, or even terrorists in their home country.

No mate, it is the pull factor of cheap/free housing, a huge resettlement grant, & a comfortable life on welfare. They & their bleeding heart advisers know how to get every penny out of our convoluted welfare system, & they live better than many supplying that welfare.

So mate, our current is guilty on both counts. Inviting them in, & encouraging them to go for a boat ride.

Australia and its government is not responsible alone in this matter. The whole world is responsible for allowing such a state of affairs in the world to persist. Refugees are the result of war, mass violence and prejudice. Lets abolish war, mass violence and prejudice. All it takes is a change in consciousness on the part of every human being on the planet. You might say impossible. I say it is easy, each person bears the personal responsibility and the receives the joy of recognising the oneness of humanity, a spiritual principle that is staring us all in the face in this modern interdependent world. One God (however called), one small fragile planet, one people.

A fine thought for the day, GR. Until that great day comes, or until the next election, whichever comes first, may the the Greens gridlock our border control and immigration systems.

Juliar is a big girl.

She has 2 choices, go with the greens onshore processing plan or with the coalition's proven off shore processing plan. So far the Juliar has stuck with the green's plan which has killed more than 500 people. She can start saving lives tomorrow with the Coalition's compromise plan.

Fine Lucerferase, but have you taken personal responsibility for the required decision I have referred to and absorbed it into your consciousness and motivation, or do you think this matter can best be solved by politics and political games. In my view divisive politics will never solve this problem, it is just fiddling while Rome burns, so to speak.

SM,

Can you gather together some links detailing the 500 deaths you suggested can be attributed solely to the Labour Govt? Just interested, and it's always good to be able to check facts.

Meanwhile, here are links to some almost compulsory reading for everyone from a wide variety of sources. Again, its a good thing to know what we're talking about before we talk about it.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/docs/news&events/rw/2010/4%20-%20Myths%20and%20facts%20about%20refugees%20and%20asylum%20seekers%202010.pdf

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/08/australia-fear-boat-people-asylum-seekers

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/refugee-obsession-out-of-proportion-20120214-1t49w.html

http://www.safecom.org.au/pdfs/boat-arrivals-stats.pdf

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/sixth-boat-arrival-in-nine-days-20120515-1yo41.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/siev-j15.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/siev-j16.shtml

http://sievx.com/FAQ.shtml

For the record, neither the Malaysia Solution nor the Pacific Solution are solutions of any sort to what is viewed as a world problem. Both parties are wrong and neither 'solution' will work. More importantly, as neither party seems willing to compromise, the discussion of floating either idea is a moot one.

My 13 year old summed it up nicely today when he asked: "Would you prefer to go Left, where nothing's right, or Right, where nothing's left?"

From the mouths of babes, eh?

*Belly* both you and *Lexi* have fundamental conflicts of interest in that one cannot be both pro the Rights of the Child and support either of the mainstream parties and or the mainstream churches.

..

To give the military/navy something practical to do, get them out there on the border. It's really very simple.

..

For the hardliners/rednecks, my interpretation of what you want is this. 1. Withdraw from the Asylum Seeker Convention. 2. Re-excise ChristMass Island from the immigration zone. 3. Issue temporary protection visas. 4. Vote for a party that will remove Human Rights guarantees from the immigration act (and you may care to note that the noalition currently refuses to do this, and in the absence of legal guarantees from Malaysia such activity has been struck down by the High Court. 5. Stash all Asylum Seeker's except for the wealthy and the brilliant wherever, be it say Manus or Nauru.

..

For those who are Pro Human Rights and Pro the Rights of the Child - Vote Green.

..

For those who wish to lock up children without charge or trial and keep them indefinitely in circumstances known to produce adverse medical outcomes, vote for the noalition or the alp.

For those that want to see more deaths at sea.

Vote---- The Greens

GR and Dream On,

Why don't we just pick up seekers of asylum in Australia from everywhere in the world until there are none left? Expecting them to safely make their own way here is unreasonable and exposes us to claims of lack of due care.

Meanwhile, we can work it from the other end so there will never be any asylum seekers anywhere and the need to pick anybody up at all will disappear.

You guys make my eyes water.

Apologies for the hyperbole in my last post (except to GR and dream On who thought I was serious)

I wonder how many know that 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, and nor should they.

According to *Christine Milne* this morning we are talking about less than 13,000 people per year, which is only a very small portion of the overall immigration intake.

Further, I believe that the *Greens* have long advocated for a pro-active stance which would include having patrols in the "active" areas. Thus, to claim that a vote for the *Greens* is pro deaths at sea is simply a baseless one.

..

It raises the question, why not simply prioritise legitimate Asylum Seekers for the purposes of immigration?

One of the reasons I believe that they are not prioritised is because where Australia once promoted its "White Australia" policy, now it promotes what amounts to a "Wealthy & Educated" Australia policy.

Of course, as I believe that the majority of Asylum Seekers that arrive by boats are neither wealthy nor educated (though I do not know that for sure) they are simply unwanted and made to suffer as a warning to others in similar circumstances because the majority of australians simply do not want to pay for them to become educated and self sufficient as indicated by them voting for the mainstream politicians.

Of course, that oughtn't surprise anyone as they don't even properly house, medicate and educate Australians as a whole, so why on earth would anyone expect them to want to assist outsiders?

As I recently said in another thread, *abbott & geelar* may as well go on international t.v. with a mentally shattered minor up ended and suspended from their left hands shouting:

" ... See, this is what we will do to your children if you dare to come here by boat seeking asylum! ... "

" ... We only want you if you have a desirable degree, several million $'s and the willingness to invest! ... "

..

Of course one of the problems with these people is that they insist on this duplicitous charade of pretending to be one thing whilst on camera, whilst in reality, as evidenced by their acts and omissions, they are something very different.

Luciferase wrote << Greens want this to cease thereby making the overall intake virtually limitless but the major parties will not support this radical line, nor should they >>

Hardly "radical". In fact Australia is one of the very few nations who adopt this linked onshore/offshore policy. Most other nations accepting refugees do so regardless of the origin of seeking asylum and, amazingly, they manage to cope quite okay. "Limitless" never enters into the equation.

It is important to view this in an overall context, rather than concentrating on a few of the more inflammatory policies adopted by current and past Aus governments. Australia has an obligation. For the most part, it fulfills this. However, it is the means by which it fulfills it that is under question and that is what needs to be sorted out.

Luciferase, 2+2 nearly always equals 4. Never does it equal 5 and only under particular circumstances can it equal 3

Dream on wrote << Why not simply prioritise legitimate Asylum Seekers for the purposes of immigration >>

Whilst I concur with the overall sentiments of your argument, this question cannot be asked for two fundamental reasons. Firstly, under international law and one which our nation has agreed and signed to uphold, ALL asylum seekers are legitimate until their claims have been processed and they are deemed refugees or not. Secondly, under international law, we cannot pick and choose, for the above reason.

No one who arrives by boat or plane and claims asylum is illegal. Only after their claim has been investigated and proven to be (or deemed to be) unfounded, can that person be said to be illegal and therefore returned to country of origin or elsewhere.

Scribbler,

<<Meanwhile, here are links to some almost compulsory reading for everyone from a wide variety of sources>>

LOL

Is it just coincidental that practically all of your <<wide variety of sources>> push a pro-illegal immigration stance?

Of the NINE sites you linked to:
Three [ Safecom, Refugee Council , SIEVX.com ] are straight out refugee advocacy sites.
One [The Guardian] is a leftwing rag
TWO are from the World Socialist Website
And the TWO articles from the SMH could be summarized as follows-- Article1: The UN chief chides Ozzies about their “obsession” with illegals (though, of course, he didn’t use the term “illegals” he’s much too proper for that!) and --Article 2: “It’s ALP and Liberal bickering which caused it all”

The only thing you left out was a link to New Matilda ( and I’m sure Lexi will be along with that later!)

If that list is indicative of your reading, it is little wonder you are confused and make comments like this: <<Most other nations accepting refugees do so regardless of the origin of seeking asylum and, amazingly, they manage to cope quite okay. "Limitless" never enters into the equation>>.

I’ll set you right on that one tomorrow … but right now I have an appointment I can’t miss.

Cheers

SPQR, the very fact that you use terms like 'pro-illegal refugee' indicates your own bias on this issue, and your ignorance. At least use the right terminology. Clearly, you did not read the articles.

I apologize for not posting opinions by Andrew Bolt, or other professed coalition supporters. In fact there were a number of even more (to use your own words) pro-illegal refugee articles and arguments that I chose NOT to post because I was trying to find a middle ground. And if the red cross, the department of immigration and the UNHCR don't know diddly squat about this issue, then I would be more than mildly surprised. But of course, you must know better.

The problem with this issue is that it will never truly be resolved to the satisfaction of all sides (believe it or not, there are more than two) because, as you have just illustrated, blinkered vision means that our view is distorted and concentrated in one direction. Well done.

Scribbler,
It seems the propaganda and lies continues, so let us get one thing straight.

IT IS ILLEGAL TO ENTER AUSTRALIA WITHOUT A VALID VISA. This applies to all non-citizens irrespective of how they enter.

This is the one and only reason we can detain those that do not have a valid visa. We cannot and do not detain those that enter legally.

Persons who may intend to apply for asylum do not have any right to go wherever they like. Because we are generous people we do not charge persons with illegal entry if they then apply for asylum.

So let us cut the bulldust, their entry is illegal. So they should rightly be termed 'illegals'.

Banjo,

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

"The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum."

What is illegal is for people to enter this country without the proper documentation and NOT claim asylum. It is illegal for people to overstay visas, or work without correct documentation. But it is not illegal for people to come here by boat or plane without a valid visa and claim asylum.

Fact.

Naturally, if you or anyone else has a problem with this, then by all means petition our government to withdraw as a signatory to the refugee convention.

scribbler,
You are incorrect.

It is against Australian law for a non citizen to enter Austrakia without a valid visa. That is the only reason we detain (lock up) these people. It is against our law to lock up people that enter legally and that we do not do. By what right do we lock these people up if they are not breaking our law?

The simple fact is that the advocates for these persons want them termed differently because it projects them in a better light.

Another fact, they get here by bribery and buying their way. If they were fair dinkum refugees they would come by the front door with any documentation to prove that. They are shonks and con artists who are willing to gate crash our country and pay many times more than a normal fair to gain illegal entry. These people do not deserve any respect from us and that is the reason why Australians want the illegal traffic stopped.

scribbler,
For your interpretation to be correct, You assert that our governments are acting outside our own law in locking these people up.

You cannot have it both ways, so if they are legal entrants all governments, since Keating, are breaking our law by detaining the boat arrivals and by immediatly deporting those that enter by air with an invalid visa.

So are you saying that the Governor General should be charged with breaking our law. Or maybe just the PM and ministers.

I think my interpretation is better and that is the boat entrants are illegal and we do not charge them with that, but we do not waive our right to detain the illegal entrants.

So they can be rightly termed illegals.

Dream On dreams of replacing all immigration with asylum seeker immigrants. scribbler makes the point that the UN convention locks us into a particular course of action when asylum seekers arrive which, I agree, it does. Also, apparently, we shouldn't worry about limitlessness because 13000 is a small portion (by his reckoning, and what is it growing to become?)of total immigration intake.

If we adopt the entirety of the Greens policy, including no detention during claim assessment, decriminalization of entry of boat crews, and limitless intake, that is an open door policy that will see numbers entering quickly exceed the current total immigration setting (asylum seekers, re-settlers, skilled, business, compassionate, family re-unification, etc.).

That the Greens party holds us in gridlock when a Malaysian swap with UN blessing is a possibility shows how unrepresentative and disregarding it is of the wishes of the large majority of Australians.

Luciferase,

A fair enough question. But can you answer this? What do you propose we do with the 801st asylum seeker, should the Malaysian Solution be adopted (in its current form)?

And the 802nd, and the 803rd, etc, etc?

Considering before 85% of the refugees here over 5 years were still on welfare after 5 years, That is all we need more welfare for lifers and they get preferential housing ( Homeless Australians = thousands ) ( Homeless refugees = ZERO ) Also most boats have 95% men on board.
Every boat puts Australian taxpayers 1 step closer to reduced public benefits and or increased tax rates.

Details, scribbler, that can be worked out. If, with Malaysian compliance, the UN says the swap can be done with non-refoulement under the 1951 convention, why would Greens, and the High Court, not support it?

The ALP, the Greens and the lunatic left wanted open-borders. Now they are complaining that people are being lured to their deaths. What did they expect? They were warned that dismantling the former Howard Government's border protection regime would give asylum shoppers the green-light to attempt illegal entry into Australia.

Take away the incentive (permanent residency for illegal arrivals) and the boats, along with the deaths, will stop.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/mps-meet-in-secret-on-asylum-deadlock-20120625-20ylp.htm
Here is the evidence.
At last we approach the solution.
And end to the boats arriving.
You may not see it here, but it is indeed in sight.
Labor made an offer in December.
Unwilling to let such a tool go Conservatives posing as LIBERALS said no.
Not this time.
See, understand, the Shadow Minister, NOT OURS! well maybe not, say no!
But this morning both party's meet and change is coming.
Informed commentators know Gillard will go, maybe this week but for sure this year.
Abbott is in very real danger of falling under this truck, IF he does not take up the offer to fix it.
We live in interesting times.
How long before another death boat?
Greens? blood on their hands too!

Scribbler,

<<SPQR, the very fact that you use terms like 'pro-illegal refugee' indicates your own bias on this issue and your ignorance. At least use the right terminology>>

1) If you think quoting from the World Socialist Website , Safecom, Refugee Council & SIEVX.com is choosing the <<middle ground>> then I shudder to think what you see as extreme. Safecom, Refugee Council & SIEVX exist largely, perhaps only, to push the illegal immigration agenda. And the World Socialist Group would like to see us all be happy little chappies in a one world commune.

2) Actually, if you had accessed (and absorbed) the Dept of Immigration information you might have faired better because it would have told you that illegals and illegal immigration was the correct term--see below:

“In the circumstances, it is difficult to conceive of a term which could describe them in a more factual, informative and appropriate way than "illegal immigrant". http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters04/Press_Council_28_June.htm

And, as far as I know we are still governed by the laws of Australia –not the UN.
Though the Green’s and many of the groups on your preferred reading list are doing their darndest to undermine that.

<<The problem with this issue is that it will never truly be resolved to the satisfaction of all sides (believe it or not, there are more than two)>>

By all sides do you include the people smugglers? I mean do we reserve a chair at the table for the likes of Capt Emad ( I need to know ‘cause if the answer is in the affirmative I’ll need to order a few thousand more chairs in)

The one group that has been overlooked up till now has been the Australian electorate.

LF,

The pacific solution complies with the UNHCR Charter.

For those who are Pro Human Rights and Pro the Rights of the Child - Vote Green.
Dream on,
In the case of the silent invasion to be pro human rights is to be anti human rights for future australians. Is that what the Greens stand for ?

SPQR

The link you provided, in particular the quote you used, was a letter to the press about an isolated case where the asylum seekers had their application investigated and deemed false, ie they were not granted refugee status. Thereby, the government's decision to deport this mother and her children were correct and I have no problem with that, as I have already stated previously.

As far as my assertion that those seeking asylum in Australia without the correct documentation, are not illegal until proven otherwise- I stand by this.

Why do we only "lock up" the boat people? Why not incarcerate ALL arrivals who come here on inadequate or false documentation and then, once here, claim asylum? The answer is simple - 1) too expensive, 2) because they have made it to our shores. Few boat people do. That's why the Howard govt removed Christmas Island and others from being classified as Australian territory for the sake of asylum seeking. That's why boats are intercepted or, in previous practice, turned back. It has less to do with saving lives and deterring people smugglers and more to do with not providing them with the opportunity to actually gain access to Australia. That way, Australia negates the need to deal with them, under the Refugee Convention, in the same way we deal with the asylum seekers who arrive by plane, ie give them full community access with temporary work visas, etc while they await the decision on their claim for asylum.

In short, we are presupposing that the claims by boat arrivals are false and that is wrong.

With regard to the plane arrivals, Australia is doing the right thing. With regard to the boat arrivals, its motives and practices are questionable at best.

We have a legal process by which asylum seekers' claims are assessed and processed. I am not saying this should not continue - in fact have never said it - but either we classify all asylum seekers as one and treat all asylum seekers in the same way, or we don't.

For the record, and to put an end to the squabbling over definition and application of said definition and away from all party political doctrine and inflammatory press (on both sides) please read the following:

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

Scribbler,

<<The link you provided, in particular the quote you used, was a letter to the press about an isolated case>>

Not so, Scribbler. If you look at the phrasing used:
--“[There have been] attempts by some in the community to mislead the public into believing a myth that all unauthorised arrivals are asylum seekers and that all asylum seekers have a right to enter a country of choice without authority...This is just not true.”
--“ Neither asylum seekers, nor refugees have a right to enter, without authority"
--“ The use of the word 'illegal' or 'unlawful' to describe asylum seekers entering a country without authority is standard international practice, not least by signatory states to the Refugees Convention..."
It should be pretty clear to all -- but the most blinkered --that it is not referring to a once off /isolated incident.

<<Why do we only "lock up" the boat people? Why not incarcerate ALL arrivals who come here on inadequate or false documentation and then, once here, claim asylum? The answer is simple - 1) too expensive>>

You refer to the hoary old chestnut –which despite being debunked a millions times –is repeatedly thrown-up by activists: “why are less concerned about the airport illegals?”

Because, most of the airport illegals are sent packing in short order. While, most of the boat arrivees get to stay on…partake of welfare for as long as they feel so inclined …and they even get to invite (read, sponsor) all their relos over to OZ.

<<We have a legal process by which asylum seekers' claims are assessed and processed.>>
Our processes are flawed or broken. If someone tells us they are from one of the countries on our list of baddies then they are all but assured of being rubber stamped “Found to be genuine”.

For your records:
We are not ruled by the UN at this point in time --yes, I know your side is working hard to make it otherwise --but up to the present, we are still subject to the laws of OZ.

SM says, obviously with tongue in cheek,"The pacific solution complies with the UNHCR Charter."

Forcefully turning boat loads of asylum seekers back out to sea does not comply.

In the interests of getting a solution up, if you really want your TPV's you can have them, as ineffective as they were.

Then it comes down to a likely to be effective Malaysian swap, with UN blessing (to be decided), or, proven ineffective temporary detention on an island with UN blessing (TBD).

Anyway, it's all academic. Morrison on ABC last night evaded the question of whether the coalition would even support complete reinstatement of PS legislation, saying it's now about the whole government and not just border control, or something to that ridiculous effect. The Mad Monk just can't get that smirk off his face as he rides a cock-horse all the way to the next election.

scribbler,
The UN wants a regional solution to stop boat drownings. What have you to say on my post re non-refoulement and the Malaysian swap

I am sorry that no-one has seen fit to take my comments seriously and are content to carry on the political debate about refugees seeking to come to Australia. The real solution in my opinion is a matter of spiritual and moral perception and commitment, going to the fundamentals of our global system and the nature of human beings. As long as we perceive refugees and all others external to Australia as just that, “others”, and not part of one great human family and race inhabiting one fragile and interdependent planet, refugees will continue to exist. It is a matter of personal responsibility, we need to look within ourselves and accept a new global consciousness rather than looking to national governments, their policies, secular laws and other players external to ourselves. A perception based on our more limited allegiances and prejudices will simply not resolve this issue nor any other of the pressing global issues such as the continuing prevalence of war and mass violence. Look to the root of the refugee issue and what causes people to flee. We all bear the responsibility for the present divided and often violent and grossly unfair world system that leads to refugees. This is the immediate issue, not some long term goal, and is becoming more urgent every day. We need a peaceful, fair, harmonious world, and this must begin within us. Divisive politics will never solve this problem, the suffering will continue whatever politicians decide of whatever party. The real and permanent solutions require real change within each of us first and foremost, not outside.

LF,

There is nothing in the charter that deals with what happens in international waters, on the moon etc. If you are so sure that turning back boats outside Aus territorial waters does not comply, please feel free to point out the relevant clauses.

The pacific solution was proven effective, with 5000 p.a. arriving before and after the PS and nearly none during.

require real change within each of us first and foremost, not outside.
G R,
I'd have thought the change has to come from outside before the people need to pack up & leave. You make it sound like we are the problem. The problem lies in those countries which produce the refugees, not with us.

The "When is it OK to kill thread has been hijacked and, to respect the call to stay on topic I'll respond to a couple of points made there back here on this thread where they belong.

The number of 801 "irregular maritime arrivals" (IMA's, they are not termed as illegals) as an imaginary impediment to the Malaysian swap. Details can be worked out, but the essential point is the flow of boats will be strangled as the swap is applied to the point there will be no IMA's arriving to swap. This will back up the flow all the way to points of first refuge from where Australia take the share it sets itself of those processed by the UN for resettlement.

IMA's don't have to make Australian landfall to claim asylum. If they are interdicted in Australian waters we are bound by the '51 convention. The legality of being stopped outside Australian waters is a moot point, but UN maritime law requires us to ensure their safety which has been more often than not exploited successfully to see them brought/escorted to landfall. Thus the most effective aspect of the Pacific solution, inhumanely turning unseaworthy boats back out to sea, was easily enough circumvented by desperate enough people.

Offshore assessment for granting protection visas and TPV's were ineffectual dissuaders, too. Proportions of women and children as IMA's tripled and they were only too happy to reach any destination under Australian protection, mainland or otherwise. The case against the effectiveness of the Pacific so called "solution" has been made well enough by the Immigration Department and others on OLO.

GR, I hear you and I'm trying hard to be a better man. Meanwhile we have a problem to solve here. I can't accept the Greens' unlimited path, nor the ineffectiveness, immorality and illegality of the coalition's. I accept the rejection of the Malaysian swap by by the High Court but want it reviewed once Malaysia, Australia and the UN works things amicably. I then expect Greens to fall into line to finally resolve matters

The Greens have put forward a humanitarian solution. Firstly increase our refugee intake from 14,000 to 25,000. This increase will deter asylum seekers from making the dangerous sea journey. I agree with the sentiments of Liberal Russell Broadbent.
“It has to be that we have a good and co-operative and engaging relationship with our northern neighbors. The regional solution shouldn't just be about finding a place somewhere and putting people there as a holding bay.”
Australia should increase its ties with Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Indonesia and boost policing of people-smuggling activities in order to stem the tide of refugees.
Its very disheartening that Abbott has taken a Pontius Pilate attitude to the whole asylum seeker question. Simply using peoples lives to score political points.
The failure to act when the boat which capsized with the loss of 90 lives first signaled 2 days before that it was in trouble in international waters. We need to learn from this and have a preemptive response in place and take immediate action.

Paul,

Once again a non solution from the greens. With hundreds of thousands waiting, the cashed up queue jumpers are still not likely to wait the 10 years to get a place, when they can buy a place for $15000.

Hi Paul 1405,

Here’s a conundrum for you. Imagine you are Oz’s first Green PM, with a clear majority in both houses, and you are presented with this conundrum –how do you respond?

Oz has just filled its quota of 25,000 “asylum seekers” for the year and everything is dandy.
When,lo and behold another boat-load of 200 arrives at Christmas Island …
Or more likely, having heard that there is now a compassionate Green PM in Canberra, the people smugglers hijack a cruise ship and it docks in Darwin with 5,000 fare paying passengers, all seeking asylum.

WHAT WOULD A GREEN PM DO?

SM,

Another misconception, what queue? The line pushed by the conservatives, the notion there is a queue of people lined up waiting to enter Australia. A bit of a pun there, line, queue.
Coalition solidarity seems to be falling apart. Good to see there are still a few within the coalition who have a moral conscience.

Paul,

There are people applying in Indonesia for asylum in Australia, they are assessed and those approved are given places based on a first come first served basis. Where I come from this is called a queue. How would you define this?

SPQR,
The 25,000 figure is offered as an immediate step we can take to help relieve the asylum seeker problem.
If the 'Norwegian Epic' should dock in Darwin Harbor with 5,000 Scandinavian asylum seekers on board I'll simply hand the 'problem' to the Minister for Population Control, The Right Honorable Mr Spqr.

Paul,
I expected a lot more from you…

You have 5,000 pleading, traumatized, asylum seekers in port Darwin.
They are terrified they will be rejected …if they are sent back they fear they will all be killed.
And all you can say is you would ( yes minister like) pass it onto the appropriate minister!

For God sake man, the whole world is watching.
This threatens our reputation as a caring, compassionate nation …it threatens our trade relations, the rest of Asia might refuse to trade with us …not to mention what it might do for your aspirations for a cushy UN seat after your primeministership.

You are the PM show some *LEADERSHIP* -- –what would you do?
(That other “great” Paul PM [Keating] never shirked taking a lead)

Come on, Paul, what would Green PM(Green in affiliation, not in experience!) do

SPQR,

We could apply the 'final solution' as demanded by some red necks. Or we could meet our humanitarian and legal obligations. I know these people are not white, do not speak the same language as most of us, not even of the same cultural background, but still, I know its hard to believe, maybe we will just have to do the right thing. What would YOU do?
The world wide problem of refugees is not going to go away in the short term no matter how many islands in the Pacific with big holes in them we find to stick people in.

Paul,

<< I know these people are not white, do not speak the same language as most of us, not even of the same cultural background,>>

Who mentioned race?
They are described as “asylum seekers’ in my little conundrum.

Now tell us what would you do with the 5000 at port Darwin ?

But just for your edification (if that is possible).
Practically all of our recent “asylum seekers” are in fact “white”.
Most southern Asians are Caucasians –sorry to overturn your fantasies!

<<What would YOU do?>>

Whoopie! …me a PM.

The first thing I would do would to ask Craig Thompson if I could borrow his little black book and credit card.

But in regard to the abovementioned boatload. I would grant none of them permanent asylum in OZ.
And I would prosecute the crew whatever their *purported age*.

I wonder how the SPQR's of this world would react if a boatload of white bowler-hatted middle-class British refugees washed up on our shores?

Regarding Craig Thomson...looks like the mainstream media is picking up the investigation concerning Kathy Jackson and the HSU, and the raising of "disturbing" allegations by Independent Australia.

http://abc.net.au/news/2012-06-26/jacksons-at-centre-of-hsu-allegations/4093190

Predictably, Poirot, throws in retort No. 223 from the refugee activists handbook: << I wonder how the SPQR's of this world would react if a boatload of white bowler-hatted middle-class British refugees washed up on our shores?>>

If she had cared to look at my little scenario. I didn’t in anyway identify race. It spoke only of “asylum seekers”.
Most refugee activists (aka concerned humanitarians, or pollyanna's ) seem to have this Pavlovian conditioned response whereby at any mention of opposition to unlimited immigration they begin to salivate and start alluding to white supremacism.

Paul tells us that the Greens will raise the intake to 25,000.
But as has been well illustrated, above.
If an EXTRA 5000 , 50,000 or even 500,000 arrive he, and his party, are incapable of saying --“ENOUGH” -- “NO MORE”.

Which is a quick recipe for converting Sydney into a poorer version Calcutta.

But in regard to the abovementioned boatload. I would grant none of them permanent asylum in OZ.
And I would prosecute the crew whatever their *purported age*.

SPQR, This may help you;

"To all who is sick of our nation desroying left wing self hating white bleeding heart do-gooders such as labor,liberal,greens who have chucked out rites,our say,our demochracy,
there are other smaller new parties in Australia that have emerged such as www.australiafirst.net
p.o box 223 croydon 3136
ausfirst@hotmail.com
0408,554 542
this party is really great,
they are against racist multicultralism
they are against mass scale non white immigration
they are against refugee/illegal boat invaiders.
infact they want to put a end to all 3 above which is really great news to help protect our white culture,heritage and identity.
all white pro proud white Aussies please check Australia first party out and all get behind this new regsitred political party!!
we need to do mass scale promoting of this party rite away in every area state by state,town/suburb by suburb.
did you know that there is now 6.858 million foreigners now living in our country,that is 490 foreigners for every one aussie,THIS IS MADNESS!!
please lets make a stand,lets help rescue white Australia for the sake of our children,there children!!

Just one question: There is 6,858,000 foreigners in Australia, plus 13996 dinky dies that is 6,871,996. According to sats Australia population is around 22,000,000 therefore what are the other 14,000,000 odd not dinky die and not foreigners. I think they are New Zealander's!
The only part of this diatribe I agree with is "THIS IS MADNESS."

"Which is a quick recipe for converting Sydney into a poorer version of Calcutta."

Nice little comparison there, Calcutta being a definitive location analogous of squalor and deprivation.... and full of people who ain't like us.

Ranting hyperbole doesn't help Paul1405. With UN approval of the Malaysian swap, why won't Greens sue for a finite increase in intake of asylum seeking refugees in return for supporting it?
The answer is because they're soppy sentimentalists who apparently care nothing for where their policy leads, nor for what the majority of Australians want.

The important issue in this debate has escaped most of the commentators to this subject. It is of course important to ascertain what Australians currently want, but far far more important is the determine what is in the best interests of the planet as a whole, and its sustainable and peaceful future for all humanity, including all refugees worldwide and all peoples troubled by war and mass violence. This is not to dismiss the legitimate interests of all nations, including Australia, in protecting their borders. But we now live in one interdependent world, one global village, and you just cant any more look at your own national interests in isolation from the rest of the world. That is neither fair nor viable in the longer term. Global problems require global solutions. Nationalistic political solutions by themselves are no longer lasting and beneficial solutions. We all have an interest in getting to the root of the refugee crisis world wide on a multilateral basis, supported by principle, ethics and fundamental human rights,and ascertaining what can be effectively done about it on a cooperative global basis. Band aid solutions are no solutions.

G R,

Unfortunately humans don't do "fundamental human rights of a global basis" particularly well. They are hunky-dory at doing "fundamental open border, free trade and profit" rights - even inventing organisations like the World Bank and the IMF to oversee loan-tied obligations like structural adjustments and the like which often further degrade the conditions of the general population in developing countries.

I believe that now a second boat with 150 people on board has capsized off Xmas island as a result of Labor's border protection policies.

Labor is quite happy to assume that the greens won't be bullied to vote for the Malaysian people swap policy, so why on earth assume that the coalition can. It is the responsibility of the government to do the best it can with what is available. Labor's response so far is to sulk and do nothing. It tries to blame the coalition, but the polls show that the electorate isn't buying it.

The right thing to do is to supply these boats with food, fuel & water, tow them out of our international waters, & advise the masters that the boat will be sunk if they again enter our territorial waters, with these invaders on board.

Then carry out this action to prove it is not an idle threat, if required.

Bet they would stop damn quick, with less loss of life, than the current Labor practice is causing.

"the boat will be sunk if they again enter our territorial waters, with these invaders on board. Then carry out this action to prove it is not an idle threat"
Hasbeen, The following quote fits in with your thinking;

The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear.
Heinrich Himmler

I concur with the sentiments expressed in this article:

http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5222

"It has been a sorry tale of incompetence, stubbornness and denial by the Gillard Government — incompetence in its inability to drive an effective policy solution, stubbornness in refusing to adopt anything Tony Abbott suggests simply because it is Tony Abbott who suggests it, and denial in its inability to see the extent of the problem and its genuine impact in the electorate.

The Sydney Morning Herald’s Paul Sheehan summed the situation up brilliantly in a column on June 11.

He wrote: “The numbers are extraordinary. The failure is breathtaking — a failure in every possible way, of policy, morality, practicality, security, sovereignty, fairness and budgeting.”

Or, as The Australian’s editor-at-large Paul Kelly put it so succinctly:

“Australia’s humiliation at the hands of people-smugglers is now complete: our borders are easily penetrated, our refugee program is critically compromised and elusive smuggler Captain Emad has made Australia a double fool, arriving illegally and departing untouched.

“Last week seven boats arrived. Last month 1,100 boatpeople arrived. Forty-five boats have arrived since Labor’s Malaysian policy was deadlocked in the parliament. The pattern is irregular but the trend is relentless — more boats are coming because people-smugglers know our borders are relatively open and they are feeding asylum-seeker demand.”

Around 18,000 people have now arrived in 314 boats under the current Labor administration, and it is estimated around 90 per cent wind their way through the system and get to stay in Australia.

The people-smugglers are right. If you pay up and get to Australia by whatever means, there is a fair chance you will be successful in short-circuiting the long, difficult and uncertain process of official immigration applications.

Incredibly, a federal Labor Government has run up the white flag on illegal immigration."

As Geoffrey Blainey once wrote, many open borders zealots tend to view Australia as merely "a piece of good luck to be shared with the rest of the world."

Their argument goes something like this: as contemporary native-born (white) Australians obviously did nothing to deserve their good fortune of having been born in such an affluent country, what gives them the right to exclude outsiders (who equally did nothing to deserve having been born into poverty)?

The obvious response to this asinine argument is that wealth is not distributed by some higher power that irrationally practices favoritism toward fair-skinned nations. Rather, wealth is produced, and most existing wealth is found in countries where most has been produced over the past several generations. One of the main motives was the producers’ expectation that they would be able to pass it on to their descendents, rather than see it confiscated for the benefit of rent-seeking foreigners.

In short, the "let them all in" brigade are delusional and clearly do not care about Australia's national interests nor the interests of the existing Australian population. They are dangerous and even, dare I say, treasonous individuals.

Hi Drab,

<<Their argument goes something like this: as contemporary native-born (white) Australians obviously did nothing to deserve their good fortune of having been born in such an affluent country, what gives them the right to exclude outsiders (who equally did nothing to deserve having been born into poverty)?>>

Well said.

An apt description of the motive(s) of most of the strongest “asylum seekers” advocates on this forum (and elsewhere).
If you look at their posting history you will see that idea encoded in their posts time and time again.

Hope we will be hearing a lot more from you on this forum.

Cheers

This boat people thing is getting out of hands. We have morons suggesting we should just open the doors. Isn't there any way these idiots could be charged with stupidity ?
How about this idea. When a boat with so-called asylum seekers is heading for Australia wait till they scuttle it then drop inflatable life rafts with sails & plenty of provisions for them to clamber on to. Once they put up the sail the prevailing winds will take them right back.
Problem nipped in the butt.
It'd be a lot cheaper & more effective plus we could start a lucrative industry of making inflatable sailing life rafts. Everyone gets something out of it instead of everyone sacrificing something.

Hmmh, no takers ? anyone have any ideas how to stop the invasion ?

Dear Individual,

Yes I do. Don't vote for inflexible pollies at the
next election - like the Opposition and the Greens.
This latest fiasco in Parliament was a total disgrace.
Fancy not giving a compromise the chance to see if it
works for at least 12 months. Pathetic!
How on earth did these people ever get elected?
Shame on all of them.

But Lexi,
Wasn't it Labor that opened the gates & is now blaming the Libs & Greens for greasing the hinges ?

Dear Individual,

No - you're buying the conservative BS.

Have a read of this:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html

The Opposition and the Greens had a chance in
Parliament yesterday to try a compromise for 12 months
which was presented to them. They refused - putting
politics ahead of the national interest. Again, I
repeat - shame on them all!

This latest fiasco in Parliament was a total disgrace.
Lexi,
Couldn't agree more. fancy making a big show of trying to close the gate after the horse has bolted. Pretty stupid.
That report is typical of those highly qualified academics. All rhetoric, never any action.
Why doesn't John Menadue go to the Middle East & offer his expertise over there & stop the people from having to leave in the first place.
Would be way better than all those fancy graphs which only show us the increase in people traffic.

Labor has had the ability to proceed with off shore processing for 4 years, and has done nothing, simply preferring to let people die rather than compromise.

Shame on Juliar and her heartless cabinet, and Labor's gutless backbench that hates the policy of sending unaccompanied minors to Malaysia to be beaten, but says nothing.

Ah yes, the final clang of the Noalition's symbols of discord - potentially unlimited refugees and huge expense. How pathetically predictable.

*Shadow* don't you think you should be out locking up some children and inflicting mental harm on them? Don't forget to say that you believe that you are doing it for their own good just in case.

..

*Lucifer* visa vi the fly em in strategy, I think you might be on to something there. .. Get the *Foreign Minister* in here and get SBY on the line, do a count and round 'em up pending preliminary id, health and security checks. While you are at it, get some transports and intercept craft out there on the front lines and keep an eye out for overly adventurous Chinese subs while you're at it.

..

*Scribbler* being a sig to the convention means little. What counts is what has been enshrined in Oz law, thus *Banjo* is correct, but that's not to say that I agree with it. Likewise with "Civil and Political Rights" in that H.R.E.O.C. is limited by both immigration and social security law. .. Thereafter, distressed and at risk Asylum Seekers deserve priority both on humanitarian grounds and overlapping laws such as the "law of the sea." .. Thereafter, for those in the camps, tough break but they are safe enough relative to those on boats and will have to sit tight, perhaps with the assistance of a bit of diverted AUSAID budget instead of just feeding it out to corrupt regimes who cream 90% of it.

..

*Lucifer* you can get rid of the settlers, skilled entrants, business and others to a large extent as far as I am concerned. The place is already overly full of corruption kiddies of despotic and totalitarian regimes.

..

*Phillip S* - yes, they are relatively expensive, no doubt about it.

..

*Scribbler* the entire process needs to be handed over to the judiciary and out of the hands of unqualified tin pot executive tribunals. Thereafter, universal legal access and lawyers on a sustainable fund is what is required.

Dream on.

"*Shadow* don't you think you should be out locking up some children and inflicting mental harm on them?"

Why bother while you are content to drown them or have them sent to be beaten.