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?