Here's a reality bite into the argument of how Mr Abbott is going to "tow back the boats."

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbotts-copycat-towback-plan-wont-stop-the-boats-20130714-2pxyg.html

"In recent weeks, the Opposition Leader, the shadow immigration minister and others have compared the federal Coalition's policy of ''turning back the boats'' carrying asylum seekers with similar practices used by the United States.

The US has had a ''Migrant Interdiction Program'' since 1981......

.......What the Coalition has not acknowledged is that the US program has failed to stop the boats and contravenes international law in several ways. The Coalition has also failed to acknowledge that its proposal would be even further in breach of international law than the US program, and certainly no more effective.......

.......There are other aspects of US practice that are unlawful, but are even worse under the Coalition's proposal. For example, under international law, a state can interfere with a vessel outside its waters only if it has an agreement with the country in which the vessel was registered (the so-called flag state). The only exception to this is if a state is rescuing a vessel in grave and imminent danger. The US generally abides by this requirement except in the case of Haiti, with which it has only an informal agreement. As it stands, the Coalition policy appears to interfere with all vessels, in clear contravention of international law.

Finally, as the Coalition has itself acknowledged, the US practice of trying to stop sea vessels has been going on for more than 30 years. Had the boats stopped as a result of the policy, the US would not need to continue this costly practice. After more than 30 years of ''tow back'', the US is no closer to stopping people from taking to the sea in an attempt to enter the country. Nor has the practice of ''tow back'' prevented thousands of people from reaching the US every year. In other words, the US practice has not achieved what the Coalition hopes to achieve. There is nothing to indicate the Coalition would have any more success at stopping the boats than does the US government."

poirot: Like public hangings, children working in factories - slavery of black people.

You are, of course, referring to the UK/Europe/Americas. Australia has never done those things to the extent in the old countries.

There were prejudices in Australia, but mainly against the Chinese. The Aboriginals considered them "Grain fed beef." One letter to the editor complained about people using the Chinee Laundry when they had a maid who could be doing it. And yes we did chain the Kanakas up at night. My old house in Ayr had the holes in the wall where the bar went through, but that was only in the Nth. Qld. Cane fields. Kids did start work earlier. My dad only went to 7th, Grade. Most kids only went to 5th. Grade, then to work. Religion was still tops socially. Somewhat different mindset to the world to-day.

Poirot: ...you're pushing the same barrow these days.

I don’t get where you are coming from here, are you stretching a point beyond reasonable limits as a deflection? I have no interest in making Muslims into slaves, making them change their religion or publicly hanging them. That mind set has gone from Western Culture, not from Middle Eastern Culture though. The West has advanced beyond that, unfortunately the Middle East (Islam) hasn’t. I don’t think it’s fair, or right to reintroduce those practices back into Western Culture forcefully. Do you?

Jayb,

Fair enough, I accept that you referring to Australia - retract my earlier post.

Poirot: After more than 30 years of ''tow back'', the US is no closer to stopping people from taking to the sea in an attempt to enter the country.

The only countries that send boats to America are Haiti & Cuba & it’s an extremely rare practice. Not counting the Drug Runners.

Poirot: Nor has the practice of ''tow back'' prevented thousands of people from reaching the US every year.

Now you are inferring that these thousands are coming by boat, when they are, in reality, “Border hopping.” You have an extremely frustrating practice of throwing in & mixing up totally unrelated practices as a diversion. Thankfully most of us are on to that game.

Frankly I find your mental gymnastics a bit like scrambled eggs. And really, what the Yanks do is nothing to do with us, that’s their problem, this is ours. Suma, suma. (same, same but different.) At least their illegal immigrants are Christian.

Poirot: the Coalition policy appears to interfere with all vessels, in clear contravention of international law.

Ok well, then, we should not be patrolling the open sea. Our boats should be in Fremantle Port waiting for a genuine distress call that is with-in our 200 Mile limit & if the emergency is closer to Indonesia (Half way) then it is their responsibility, even taking in Xmas Island. Schrimple.

We could always give Christmas Island to Indonesia. The very short distance from Java to Australia ie. Christmas I. is obviously an encouragement to people try the boat route. C. I. is Australian by an accident of history and would make geographical sense to be part of Indonesia.

Oh wait, it's a strategic base (= a useless island somewhere that gives two countries a chance to posture, flex their muscles and fight) and it gives us 'legal' access to all that potential undersea resources etc. Clearly that outweighs the current relatively minor problems (in the global scheme) of a few thousand uninvited migrants.

Cossomby: We could always give Christmas Island to Indonesia.

I'd say the Clunies-Ross family would have something to say about that. John was C.O. of A Coy 2 R.A.R. 64/65 when I was in D Coy. then C.O. of D Coy. 1 R.A.R 65/66, then as a in Colonel in 11 Brigade in Townsville in the 70/80's when I was a Sgt. in 31 R.Q.R. A very nice guy.

Cossomby: Oh wait, it's a strategic base (= a useless island somewhere that gives two countries a chance to posture, flex their muscles and fight) and it gives us 'legal' access to all that potential undersea resources etc.

True. The Clunies-Ross are very protective of the people on their Island.