"We're in no danger of being "swamped".....although it's the first thing suggested by those who resent Middle-Easterners seeking asylum here."

Introducing ethnicity into our discussion is poor form, Poirot, if you are taking aim at me.

The safer and less expensive the access is to irregular arrival, the more irregular arrivals there will be, to the point of overwhelming our capacity to process their asylum claims and assimilate successful claimants. Surely we can agree on that, Poirot, or are 45 million displaced people completely stupid?

I have trust in my Gov't, of any persuasion, to get things right in PNG to stop the boats, while you don't. That doesn't absolve you from coming up with a solution to boat deaths, which you avoid every time I ask.

Clinging to John Lennon's "Imagine" isn't cutting it, Poirot, though I completely admire the sentiment.

From your Simple Minded Bigot, thanks poirot.

poirot: Wealthy, fortunate Australia and its tin pot cringing attitude is an embarrassment

Wealthy Australia? Our Road System, the Health System, the Education System, the Indigenous bush people are a total mess & we can't afford to fix any of it.

Lexi: You an atheist? I don't believe that either. If you were - you wouldn't give a hoot about any religion.

I don’t give a hoot about any Religion, true. But I respect people’s beliefs, even Muslims. However Islam isn’t just a religion. It is a Medieval System of Government that is completely evil in its implementation. It is guided by fanatics who demand total servitude & its people obey blindly. Therefore I don’t respect the Religion itself.

Loudmouth: YES/NO

Good luck with that, Joe.

Cossomby: We can't take everyone.

No. We can’t but we can weed out the Muslims.

Cossomby: But we can stop demonising people (as jihadists, fanatics etc.) and using this to play domestic politics. It must be extremely depressing to flee jihadists and fanatics only to find that you are labelled as one yourself.

Quote: Abu Imam, Iftikhar & multiple other moderate Muslims, “There is no such person as a Moderate Muslim.” Either you are a Muslim or an Infidel, Quote: A Malaysian Imam to me, “If you are not a Muslim, you’re an Infidel, you are an animal & can be killed, no problem.”

Poirot: We're in no danger of being "swamped"

Depends on who you listen too.
cont.

Luciferase,

If you trust your government to get it right in PNG, then I think your trust is misguided.

Judging from the information aired last night, Australia has presided over the worst kind of detention in the worst possible way.

I'm embarrassed and appalled.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-23/whistleblower-claims-manus-island-detainees-raped/4839198

I take your point about boat deaths, but I've already stated that in my opinion asylum seekers who arrived by boat are driven by the number of people fleeing in general. At this present time in history there is a crisis emanating from that geographical area.

Why shouldn't I raise ethnicity? I wasn't taking aim at you. You are one of the reasonable posters around here. Ethnicity is at the fore of much Australian opposition to taking in these people. Just pick a thread on OLO and find out what many think about our latest asylum seekers' ethnicity.

It will be interesting to see if the boats "stop" because of the PNG "solution".

Doesn't seem to be happening so far.

Hi Poirot,

But you're still getting back into the ring, right ?

As it happens, I agree with you about the PNG non-solution, I think it will fall over in weeks. But there seems to be two issues here -

1) when 'boat-people' are picked up, where will they be taken ?

and

2) what policy can be implemented to stop any more boats taking to the sea in the first place ?

The PNG non-solution seems to be (I think, vain) attempt to implement No. 2, via No. 1. But what might actually work ?

I still think, in my naivety, that people who leave one country without exit papers, even that little card you fill out on the plane, and try to enter another country without entry papers, should be liable to be flown straight back to their point of departure.

This would represent much inconvenience and embarrassment for the government of the country they were leaving from, so some compensation would be due to that government for each person attempting to leave improperly, say a hundred thousand dollars, and the person is then re-settled, free to apply properly to enter Australia, and no recriminations or repercussions.

So: increase the annual intake, and fly 'illegals' straight back to their point of departure. The Loudmouth Solution :)

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

No one is saying that this is not a huge challenge.

There is a refugee crisis unfolding now.

Australia receives a trickle by world standards.

If it's a matter of "principle" - and you say:

"I still think, in my naivety, that people who leave one country without exit papers, even that little card you fill out on the plane, and try to enter another country without entry papers, should be liable to be flown straight back to their point of departure."

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/RefugeeResettlement

"Is there a queue?

No. If UNHCR assesses a refugee to be eligible for resettlement it does not mean that they have joined an orderly ‘queue’, and that they will be guaranteed resettlement to another country when their ‘number comes up’. The fact is that though they may be assessed as eligible for resettlement by UNHCR, in reality they face a potentially indefinite waiting period for a resettlement country to offer them a resettlement place (depending on their individual needs) and even then, the ultimate decision as to whether they will be granted a refugee visa is dependent on the country which has agreed in principle to resettle them."

".......resettlement needs therefore continued to outpace available resettlement places by a factor of 10 to 1’.[10] In total, less than one per cent of the world’s refugees may be resettled in any given year......."

Yes, increase the annual intake.

Hi Poirot,

Increase the intake: well, that's problem #1 solved.

But "The fact is that though they may be assessed as eligible for resettlement by UNHCR, in reality they face a potentially indefinite waiting period for a resettlement country to offer them a resettlement place (depending on their individual needs) and even then, the ultimate decision as to whether they will be granted a refugee visa is dependent on the country which has agreed in principle to resettle them."

".......resettlement needs therefore continued to outpace available resettlement places by a factor of 10 to 1’.[10] In total, less than one per cent of the world’s refugees may be resettled in any given year......."

That's called a queue', Poirot: if person A applies today, and has her papers etc. processed by the UNHCR, then she has to take her place behind some other poor bugger who is waiting behind another poor bugger.

i.e. a 'queue'.

More people join the queue each year, as you point out so incisively. i.e. it gets longer. The point is that here are likely to be many, many people in front of those poor buggers that SHY and her teenage acolytes weep over so copiously.

And what about all those millions, in African desert camps, who have so little, one set of clothes, a pot, two spoons, and that's it - who can never, ever imagine having enough to scrape together to get to Nairobi airport, and then to Dubai, and then to Indonesia - and then pay somebody to get on a boat, on the off-chance that they will survive and get to PNG ?

SHY weeping over Africans ? I'd like to see that.

Cheers,

Joe