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.