Clive Parlmer's immigration policy is not worthy of discussion

However Ludwig, yours has merritt and I would not have to modify it much.

The point is Australia should gain from allowing others to share what our forebears have built. At present the only ones to gain are the immigrants, property developers and retailers.

Simply increasing our population is not an advantage.

"Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler and economically & environmentally less costly to toughen our onshore procedures?"

No, because over a reasonably short time arrivals would be discouraged to a stop under the offshore arrangement. Under an onshore arrangement with detention we'd have the status-quo (without the drownings) or, without detention, we'd have the Greens scheme.

Where's the disincentive, SPQR, in the onshore arrangement?

Also, there would be considerable internal pressure to limit the detention period to way, way less than that refugees might wait for resettlement in offshore locations.

Luciferase,
I am not proposing the Green’s idiotic open door, rubber stamp all comers approach.

The below well encapsulates our problem -–and hints at its solution:

“At its core perhaps the biggest embarrassment in this whole debate is the way that Australian law-makers (politicians) are running away from Australian law. The whole unsavoury point of offshore processing is to restrict boat people from Australia's appeals courts, which give them numerous opportunities to prove their refugee status. That's why Christmas Island was excluded from the migration zone in the first place. That's why politicians want the navy to intercept boats and ship them to offshore sites, whether it's Nauru or Malaysia or anywhere else.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/australian-politicians-are-adrift-on-a-sea-of-hypocrisy-writes-peter-van-onselen/story-e6frezz0-1226413146824

Toughen our processes/ assessments. As it currently stands over 90% of “asylum seekers” get through before or after appeals.
(including only god knows how many capt Emads-or worse!)
With those sorts of odds why wouldn’t you give it a try!

<<There are at least three points where we could staunch illegal maritime immigration:
1) Discourage accomplishes.
2) Toughen scrutiny , &
3 Reduce entitlements.
And each one has been effectively castrated.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5233&page=0>>

"Toughen our processes/ assessments."

As a statement, SPQR, this rolls off the tongue quickly but what does it mean?

If Nauru was about keeping the legal process at bay how does onshore processing help your cause? In what ways should we "toughen" without denying natural justice or contravening our obligations under the UN convention?

The onshore "solution" does not discourage direct arrivals. Any law that is not supported by the UN or contravenes the refugee convention will be put down in our High Court.

As stated in another post I would welcome Clive Palmer into parliament with open arms, but only as an independent. He and the likes of Katter stirring the possums, (or is it feeding the chooks for Queenslanders?) would be great for our parliament.

I thought his push to get lobbyists out of party positions was an excellent idea and all Australians who care about their democracy should have applauded it.

As to Clive's idea about flying in Asylum Seekers we all ready do it. The majority come in by air but only 20 percent of these are even given refugee status. The minority who come by boat have between a 75-90% success rate. Therefore we are forcing the group who is the most legitimate to undertake a dangerous sea journey at highly inflated costs.

Let them fly instead, most of them could afford to pre-purchase a return ticket at the prices the smugglers charge so if unsuccessful they could be flown back at no expense to the Australian government.

But most importantly it would save lives. Anybody who discounts or disregards this, or wishes the risk to continue to deter desperate people are cruel, hateful, misguided and inhuman and should be denounced at every opportunity, and I'm happy to include the Greens in that lot as well.

I think it would serve Australia well to have a little more humanity brought back into the debate.

Luciferase,

<<As a statement, SPQR, this rolls off the tongue quickly but what does it mean?>>


I'm not necessarily opposed to offshore processing. It no doubt has a part to play. But as some have said in relation to climate change amelioration, we should pick the low hanging fruit first.

After what you (or, at least the rest of us) have seen with regard to capt Emad & family (ALL of whom still hold “genuine ” refugee classifications by the way!). And the Burmese “refugees” who admitted to taking part in regime killings.And the Somalis “refugees” who went back to fight for al-Shabaab. And all the other “refugees” who see fit to return home on VFR— are you still trying to maintain that our processes cannot be tightened?

And just in case you weren't aware -- the parliament of Australia makes the law of OZ, and the High Court needs to operate within those law.