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.