I suspect that only a very small percentage, perhaps 5% are genuine
refugees. The rest are economic immigrants.
Anyone who believes different is a mad trendy fashion follower.

Bear in mind in a time of zero growth everything that they get here
whether earned or not comes out of your pocket.
We now have a fixed size cake, and each slice they take is a slice you
cannot give to your children.

At some point in the future that cake will get a little smaller and
keep getting smaller.
The only way we can now take immigrants is if we reduce our population first.

Don't like it ? Well tough, thats the way it is so live with it !

csteele,

You ignore the question of the total numbers we might be likely to get. This article shows the UNHCR statistics as of this time last year

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/20/unhcr-report-refugee-numbers-15-year-high

Note that in addition to the 15 million refugees, there are more than 27 million internally displaced people and 12 million stateless people. How many of them all do you want us to take? One reason why so many of us are against the 1951 Refugee Convention is the open ended nature of the commitment.

You also seem to believe that the higher acceptance rates for asylum seekers arriving by boat are because genuine refugees are more likely to arrive in this way (why?). Airlines and legitimate shipping lines are held financially responsible for bringing people without valid travel documents into Australia, so they avoid doing it. This means that we know the identities and nationalities of asylum seekers who arrive by air. If their asylum claims fail, they can be sent back, because governments cannot afford to dishonour their own travel documents.

Those who arrive rregularly by boat can afford to destroy their travel documents (a pretty good clue that a claim isn't genuine, as a genuine refugee would want to establish his/her identity). They can then tell an uncheckable story that ticks the boxes of the Refugee Convention. No official wants to take the chance of rejecting an asylum seeker who is then sent back and killed, so they are given the benefit of the doubt. We can't send them back in any case if we don't know who they are or where back is. This also gives their home countries an excuse not to cooperate.

csteele,
I have a far better plan than you or Palmer.

Continue processing at Christmas Island.

They get one shot at proving they are genuine refugees, no appeals and no legal aid.

Those successfull get TPVs for 5 years and no family reunion rights ever.

Those that fail and have documentation are sent packing.

Those that do not have any docs are sent to Macquarie Island (our land) where they are housed and the UN informed that they are stateless persons and are now the UN's responsibility. We could fly these to Hobart and then by Oceanic Viking to Macquarie Island. She could keep an eye out for possible fishing poachers on the way. The illegals advocates could keep themselves amused by knitting some woollen jumpers for the illegals.

I garrantee this will reduce the numbers and sort out the sheep from the goats

Dear Divergence,

Those millions are not going to suddenly land on our doorstep, that is absurd fear-mongering, I know it and you know it, so why not park it?

I suspect, and the figures bear me out, that those without documentation are more likely to be found to be refugees. Those who have had to flee suddenly from persecution and death may well be caught in a position of not being able to secure their documents. I would be far more suspicious of a boat load who had all their documentation in order. Wouldn't you?

But if they do have everything required then why not fly them in at their expense with a prepaid return ticket in hand if needed?

Dear Banjo,

Luckily there are decent people in this country who would like to see a more humane solution found.

csteele,
Where is my plan inhumane? None will drown.

It is called dissincentive, only the genuine need apply.

I would be willing to fly them from Indonesia to Christmas Island, if they had docs. Check on boarding.

If they flew into Malaysia or Indonesia, they would have docs.

Where does it say they should be housed in a tropical climate. Am sure the UN will take good care of them after they pick them up from Macquarie.

csteele,
what's humane about having your country invaded by a fundamentalist religious agenda ?