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?