In this case I am on side with Shadow Minister, these folk should have been on the first barbed wire boat back to the place they come from.
Far too many want to ignore the fact our over generous welfare system, to new arrivals, is a beacon for the boats.
Shame we do not know Abbott,s policy on this subject, how many came this week, how many went home, how many have we sent home.
Well we do know 3 genuine asylum seekers got sent back to new Guinea.
And it is likely another 3 got thrown over the fence at our Bali Embassy for daring to ask for refuge.

Dear Pericles,

Well said.

I read somewhere that,

"Radio shock jocks like Alan Jones are the media
equivalent of cockroaches. They feed of shyte,
and can withstand a nuclear blast."

How's this for a crazy idea ?

1. Raise the annual intake to 30,000. Strictly of people who have filled out all the right forms, and in the assessment of the relevant bureaucrats, are genuine refugees, not migrants. Syrian or Somali orphans, for example.

2. All those who try to come from Indonesia by boat are taken to Christmas Island, fed and clothed well, rested, allowed to enjoy its tourist sites, and then flown by Garuda back to Indonesia, from where they are given the option of flying back to wherever, all paid for by the Australian government, or staying in Indonesia and enjoying ITS sites.

i.e. if it was made clear that coming to Australia by boat was not an option. So for the most part, paying to get to Indonesia for that purpose would be futile. Stay back in a genuine refugee camp, fill out the right forms and wait your turn, as part of Poirot's annual intake, like those poor buggers in that 400,000-person camp in the north of Kenya.

How quickly would the flow of economic migrants to Indonesia, seeking to come to Australia, dry up ? A month ? Two months ?

Nos many would have to be given the Garuda option ? Ten thousand ? Five thousand ? At a total of ten thousand dollars per head ? A total of fifty to a hundred million dollars, all up ? Cheap at half the price.

Admittedly, SHY would need more hankies, but there would be fewer to cry over, fewer of what Tony Burke, that heartless b@stard, called 'line of sight 'refugees''. And those OUT OF sight refugees might get a better look-in.

Jo

Foxy - It says lots about you for congratulating Pericles for a beat-up post (some of which is just stating the obvious) but you failed to comprehend this from the other article or were blinded by your bias

Quote
"She said she originally got into the field of asylum health because she wanted to treat people.

"I have a lot of empathy for refugees ... when I started, I told myself I was just going to be treating people, I said I was not going to get involved in the politics," she said.

"But I soon went from dealing with mostly human misery to human demands."

OVER TIME she then realized Quote

"These are the more extreme examples, but I continued to get the impression that many of these people were not genuine refugees.

As with your comments regarding foreign aid and this one on refugees,
PLEASE wake up to reality.

Dear Philip S.,

I was merely responding to what Pericles said
in reference to Alan Jones
and my comments stand.

As for your concern about my take on aslum seekers?
Philip, we've been over this ground many times and
as I've stated many times there will always be people
who will try to abuse any system. However as long as
Australia is a signatory to the various Refugee
Conventions and International Agreements - it is
legal for asylum seekers to ask for asylum. In order
for them to be found illegal, they have to be so
assessed. That's the way things stand - unless of
course the government decides to opt out of the
agreements. That is the reality, whether you like it
or not. Carrying on about economic refugees is not going
to solve anything. The government has to make a decision
as to what policies to put in place to deal with this
problem.

Philip S,

"You pasted from 2 different quotes implying it was from 1, this suited your bias. so here is the 1st quote for you again."

Where did I imply that it was from one quote.

I did not imply that her comments were from one quote or sentence.

I posted a link to her interview/article...both of those quotes are included..and yes they both emanate from the same article.

She stated both of those views in the article.

The headline about botox, etc was an extreme example.

That's what she said.

But (surprise, surprise) it's being employed for the purposes of the usual suspects on this thread as representative of the great majority of asylum seekers who arrive by boat.

Pericles,

"But a beat-up is a beat-up, I suppose. Alan Jones wouldn't have an audience if it weren't for a continuous stream of stories like this one. No genuine issue, just a load of hot air."

Well said.