Due to the huge number of migrants drowning whilst using people smugglers, various countries from the EU and Asia are looking to the spectacular success the coalition achieved with their turn back policy.

I am interested in what advice the members of OLO could give them to help stopping the deaths at sea.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Firstly - kindly provide us with a link to your claim.

Then we shall happily respond.

First of all the EU has stated that they will not be implementing the Australian policy of turning back the boats as it is contrary to Un conventions.

Thailand which was doing a roaring trade smuggling and holding refugees (mainly Rohingya from Burma) as hostages, has put a stop to refugees landing on the coast, because they were so embarrassed by the mass graves of Rohingyas, which were found in the jungle.The Rohingyas are Muslims and are trying to get to Malaysia were they are accepted unofficially because they are a source of cheap labour.
again because of the way the Thais treated the Rohingyas, Malaysia has stated that they will not allow refugee boats to land on the coast.
The result is we now have a number of refugee boats drifting on the Andaman sea with hundreds of people on board with no food and no water.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/world/asia/burmese-rohingya-bangladeshi-migrants-andaman-sea.html?_r=0

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/05/07/409864/Thailand-Rohingya-Myanmar

I hope Australia can not be blamed for encouraging these countries to turn back boats, but I suspect a case could be made.

Foxy,

Just for you:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/europe-seeks-asylum-advice-from-abbott-government/story-fn9hm1gu-1227337899105

"The Australian has learned a meeting took place in Sydney last week in which European immigration officials specifically asked to be given a rundown on the workings of Operation Sovereign Borders.

Australia hosted the regular meeting of senior immigration ­officials from 16 countries, including representatives of about a dozen EU and North American nations, as well as New Zealand.

Australia’s border protection policy, which centres on boat turnbacks as well as offshore processing and offshore resettlement, has stopped deaths at sea since it began in late 2013."

Warmair,

If you bothered to read the UNHCR convention, you would realise that turnbacks are not in contravention.

'morning Foxy,

Just wait a little longer and the news from the EU will eventually reach you. Don't expect it to arrive from the Guardian, Fairfax, the Conversation, New Matilda or the ABC anytime soon, but it will get there eventually.

Links? What planet are you living on? It takes 18 hours for radio signals to reach Neptune. Are you further out than this?

Dear Shadow Minister,

Just for you:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/21/if-europe-listens-to-tony-abbott-the-future-for-refugees-will-be-cruel

Dear spindoc,

Obviously we differ in our preferences of news
sources. If you want your "News Limited" -
Stick with what you're doing.

As for your reference to radio signals?
Some of us prefer more advanced technology
but you go right ahead and keep
doing what you're doing - it's reassuring after
all. Do what you're comfortable
with. As for outer space? I won't discourage
you. On the contrary -
Go for it.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I forgot to Thank You for the link you gave
however, seeking advice and actually taking
it are two different things. We will have
to wait and see if any of the countries mentioned
actually follow the Australian example. It will
be interesting to see what the end result will be.

BTW - just another thought. How do we really know whether
the deaths at sea have actually stopped? The entire
matter is so secretive. Perhaps one day the truth will
out. The full truth that is.

The following links may be of interest:

http://openborders.info/blog/tag/boat-people

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/15/migrants-cant-be-left-to-die-in-the-seas-of-europe

'morning Foxy,

Woohoo, you have discovered something faster than the speed of light, which is the speed of radio signals? Wow!

There is something about you that is very disturbing when you can " bend" the laws of physics to suit your arguments!

Silly girl, but hey, education for you never stopped a good old hissy fit. LOL!

Europe is in a massive decline. It is pitiful to see those that inherited such a great civilisation that it could build the modern world, are no longer enough to protect even their home.

In a generation or two, no one from today will recognise that which exists in Europe as European. With it's current leadership, the Europe that built the modern world will no longer exist, & it's people & the rest of the world will be the poorer for that. Like the Inca the people will be impossible to find, as they will no longer exist.

Like Europe we have people who despise us & themselves, & want nothing more than to destroy us. It is they who would open our gates to the boats & huge formal immigration of incompatible people. I wonder if we are strong enough still to stop them?

Come on Foxy, giving us a link to The Open Borders website blog as a reference... you have got to be kidding. Do you really think that website was set up to provide a balanced view on the illegal boat people issue?

You can read that crap and believe it if you want but don't expect your regular adversaries to give it one iota of credence. You may think Murdock media is biased, but that group is just plain loopy.

Also you mentioned that (the Europeans) seeking advice doesn't mean they will follow the advice, true. But you don't fly half way around the world if you are not interested, and when your borders are being invaded daily by boat loads of unskilled third worlders, chances are your hoping Australia's example is workable at home.

Time and again we see how messed up Europe is and the problems Europe has to deal with. Is that what you want for us here in Australia? And don't bother coming back with the phoney excuse "Europe has nothing to do with Australia", heck we are even sending a contestant to Eurovision this year.

It's strange that personal attacks are forthcoming
but no one has bothered to really point out the flaws in the
arguments put forward by the websites. Name-calling
is not an appropriate way to debate any issue.

Dear Spindoc,

Me having a "hissy-fit?"

Not at all.

Just trying to calm you down and understand you.
After all you were the one into name-calling on
the other discussion and talking about radio
signals and other planets on this one.

SM,

I'd be surprised if anything came of the "meetings" and requests - as European countries still appear to take themselves seriously in their roles as signatories to various conventions - unlike Australia.

Your link is paywalled, but I think it was from the 6th May.

This from the 4th May

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/aust-in-contact-with-europe-over-boats-pm/story-e6frfku9-1227334002348#

"But Commission spokeswoman Natasha Bertaud said in Brussels that she was "not aware" of any European-Australian contacts on asylum seekers.

She said "the European Union applies the principle of non-refoulement," or no forced return under international law.

"We have no intention of changing this. So of course the Australian model can never be a model for us," Bertaud added."

Although here's another plug for govt policy from Julie Bishop:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/julie-bishop-confirms-european-boats-plea/story-fn9hm1gu-1227352471973

Even UKIP leader, Nigel Farage though Oz policy was a bridge too far -

"....Is he endorsing immigration detention, detention of children, forced pushbacks? Farage made it clear he was not. “Some of the ways that Australia acts on these things,” he said, “are tougher than we in Britain can perhaps stomach.”"

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/24/tony-abbott-hes-too-tough-on-immigration-for-me-says-nigel-farage

It is kinda interesting from an irony POV to see all the migrants pouring into Europe from the former Middle-Eastern and African colonies, etc....interesting times.

Foxy,

Considering that most of the news of people drowning and boats in distress came from sources other than the navy, the chances of boats sinking without any distress calls is pretty much zero. This level of feigned stupidity is too much.

Given that the Rudd like approach to boats has led to a massive loss of life in the order of 10s of 1000s appalled Europeans are looking for a workable solution, especially as most EU countries are not taking these migrants from Italy.

P,

I am aware that the EU is presently saying that it won't adopt the Aus solution, but my experience is that they will keep on denying it right up until they do it.

Remember how Labor categorically stated that boat turnarounds were impossible.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm not really keen to indulge in the usual
finger-pointing exercise. Neither major political
party's history in the treatment of asylum seekers
is anything to be proud of as Prof. Gillian Triggs
pointed out in her report. As the UN and Human Rights
Organisations have pointed out - Australia's treatment
of asylum seekers to date has been shameful.

Even our Foreign Minister Julie Bishop casts doubt on
the PM's "stop the boats" policy.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/foreign-minister-julie-bishop-casts-doubt-on-prime-ministers-stop-the-boats-polcy-for-european-nations-20150422-1mr6ub.html

'morning Foxy,

"Even our Foreign Minister Julie Bishop casts doubt on
the PM's "stop the boats" policy".

What a load of old cobblers, you deliberately missed out the rest of that headline which actually reads;

" Foreign Minister Julie Bishop casts doubt on Prime Minister's 'stop-the-boats' policy for European nations".

JB is suggesting that our policy might not be appropriate for the EU. Nothing to do with casting doubt on the success of "Stop the boats policy" for Australia.

You are rapidly degenerating into a vexatious poster with declining credibility. Your narrow, self referential values, your refusal to debate the very content you launch, your endless supply of Unicorns and diversions, your total dependence on only those links that sustain your personal perspectives and your refusal to acknowledge that these perspectives cost 1,500 lives, are possibly the reasons you are being targeted by adult OLOer's.

You lack shame, you are a "seemer", you wish to be "seen" to exhibit compassion but it is political rather than genuinely humanitarian. Hipocrisy reigns supreme in your closed world and you can no longer sustain your own feel good values.

You deserve everything you get from now on!

I think most people would know that the ideology held by people like Professor Triggs adds more to the problem than solves it. Selective facts, seeing guns where their were no guns just happened to fit her narrative. In the private sector she would be out of a job.

Dear Spindoc,

So in your opinion, I deserve everything that
I get from now on?

Well, that's a relief.

It certainly has to be an improvement on what I've
been getting from you lately.

You sound over-heated and quite shrill.

Perhaps you need to worry less about me and what
in your opinion "I'm becoming" and worry more
about what you're becoming.

The spindoc that I remember from the past - was
a totally different person to the one I'm seeing now.
He was someone I could inter-act with. The current
spindoc just seems interested in shouting matches
and mud-slinging.

'morning Foxy,

I guess you are once again refusing to address your "cheating" headline? Yep Foxy, we get you.

What was it I was saying about your "Your narrow, self referential values, your refusal to debate the very content you launch, your endless supply of Unicorns and diversions"?

One has to wonder if you have children and just what such values you impart to them? I suppose when they get challenged by society on your "values" it will all be someone else's fault?

Of course, you could always admit your distortion of that headline and apologise to us, fat chance eh?

Dear Spindoc,

No. Sadly you don't get me at all.

However, I shall try to explain things to you.
This discussion was raised by Shadow Minister.
He claimed as indicated by his chosen title that
the world was looking to copy Australia's boat
turn around success.

I responded by giving him the website taken from
the Sydney Morning Herald which clearly stated the
comments made by our Foreign Minister while she
was overseas that what worked for Australia may not
work for Europe due to entirely different circumstances
and geography, as she explained. I do not understand
why you're carrying on about the Minister's comments or
your reference to my "cheating headline?" or
what reason you found to bring my children into this
discussion. Most inappropriate behaviour and no way
to argue.

You're beginning to sound slightly unhinged

'morning Foxy,

Yes, we can read Foxy and we know what the article said, but you said;

"Even our Foreign Minister Julie Bishop casts doubt on
the PM's "stop the boats" policy".

Why do you find it so difficult to acknowledge your deliberate attempt to verbal JB and yes, dishonesty is a nasty trait to pass to your kids.

Still, if that's as close as you can get to an acknowledgement, I guess we will have to roll with you again doing a "Foxy".

spindoc says of Foxy:

"You are rapidly degenerating into a vexatious poster with declining credibility...."

Lol!

Best example I've heard all month of the pot calling the kettle vexatious.

Btw, spindoc, while we're here, could you give me an example of a post where you're addressing someone of opposing opinion where you don't impugn them to some degree?

Dear Poirot,

Hopefully the United Nations High Commission for Refugees
(UNHCR) along with financial support from countries globally
will be able to come up with a workable solution to this current
massive global refugee problem. I don't think that most of us fully
realise the seriousness of it.

According to the UN Refugee records during WWII millions
of displaced persons ended up in Allied Occupied European
territory and UNRRA was established to deal with a problem
at a time of severe global shortages and worldwide transportaion
problems. UNRRA working with organisations like the
International Refugee Organisation, World Health Organisation
and others, managed to solve the problem for millions of
people displaced by war.

Today's problem is growing and while the US Government funded
close to half of UNRRA's budget and other countries contributed
as well. We have a different situation on our hands economically
today. All one can do today - is put the pressure onto
our political leaders to contribute financially to ensuring
the success in terms of providing aid, food, and medicine and
helping the UN and Europe aid these refugees on the path to recovery.
They need our help.

Dear Spindoc,

My statement was immediately followed by the given web-site
in which Julie Bishop's comments made it quite clear as to
what she was referring to. I know that Shadow Minister was
more than capable of understanding the point that was being
made. A point that he originally brought up by way of discussion.

Your comprehension skills however are beyond my control.

I think you are now simply stirring and trying to divert
this discussion.

'morning Poirot,

Can you give me an example where either you or Foxy have acknowledged to OLOer's when you get something wrong?

Glass Houses meet Stones Poirot!

'morning Foxy and Poirot,

Since I'm competing with our favourite "last word queens" I might as well keep my original and undiverted point going.

The SMH headline says;

" Foreign Minister Julie Bishop casts doubt on Prime Minister's 'stop-the-boats' policy for European nations".

Foxy "Beckham" bends this to;

"Even our Foreign Minister Julie Bishop casts doubt on the PM's "stop the boats" policy"

You see Foxy/Poirot, it is not the content of the link that is in question, it is the way you dispense with context and relevance to turn it into political rhetoric.

We all know you misrepresent quotes to reinforce a weak argument, it's just that now and then you both need a good old "yank on your reins".

Are there any "husbands" in your lives or are you free to roam through your social lives without any form of balance or moderation?

"We all know you misrepresent quotes to reinforce a weak argument..."

Says the poster who has a PhD in misrepresenting data and conclusions on climate.

(Smile)

"Since I'm competing with our favourite "last word queens" I might as well keep my original and undiverted point going."

One of your coterie said something similar to me recently.

I think that the next time you're all communing outside the forum, you should get it straight as to who is using which lines.

Dear Spindoc,

After reading your last post I now fully understand
what's been troubling you.

You want to get the last word in every discussion.

Goodness me - all you had to do is ask.

You can easily have the last two words.
Just make sure the words are -
Yes dear!

Foxy,

I must admit that Julie Bishop's diplomatic comment in Europe saying it might not work for them to your conclusion "Even our Foreign Minister Julie Bishop casts doubt on the PM's "stop the boats" policy." is a bit of a stretch.

The EU is now faced with the same dilemma, which is more unpalatable, turning back migrants, or fishing out the bodies of 1300 dead men women and children in a single week.

The second problem from Europe's lax border control policies is that with the migrants numbers jumping from 250 000 p.a. to 60 000 per week is that all these people are arriving in Italy and Spain, and no one else in Europe is taking them as their annual quotas are filled in a month, so there are vast camps of unemployed migrants in Italy and Spain living on handouts, and not even receiving social security.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Yes it is a dreadful situation and as I stated to
Poirot it shall be interesting to see what the
world decides to do with this huge glabal refugee problem.
As Julie Bishop stated what works for one nation may not
work for another. The situation in Europe is entirely
different as is the geography. The UN High Commission
For Refugees has made it quite clear that it will take
global cooperation to resolve this problem. Financial
aid is needed (amongst other support).

It's not something that has a one-size fits all solution.
Hopefully our leaders will decide to assist in whatever way
they can. We have an excellent Foreign Minister who I'm sure
will advise our PM on this matter. As will other experts I'm
sure.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Here are two links that explain how Australia's
boats policy works and whether it could be
transferable to Europe:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/22/could-australia-stop-the-boats-policy-solve-europe-migrant-crisis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11554161/How-Australias-migrant-policy-works-and-is-it-transferable-to-the-Mediterranean.html

Thank you Foxy for the two links to today's Australian and Telegraph articles.

The Telegraph makes the unsupported statement "Tony Abbott claims Europe should copy his controversial "turn back the boats policy" Tony Abbott never said that, he actually said (which the Telegraph rightly quotes later in the article) "the only way you can stop the deaths is in fact to stop the boats". "We must resolve to stop this terrible problem and the only way you can stop the deaths is to stop the people smuggling trade," he said. "That's why it is so urgent that the countries of Europe adopt very strong policies that will end the people-smuggling trade across the Mediterranean."

This is the trouble with sensationalist media reports, they create a false statement at the beginning that essentially sets 'the facts' the reader is supposed to glean. If you read the whole article much of it simply outlined the successful Australian policy. But also within the article are a few "critics say", "some analysts warn", "UN report says" but all of these are speculations that not necessarily correct.

I'm curious. I'd like present a simple question to Foxy, Suse, Poirot, Robert Le Page and others who support the idea of opening the borders to boat people. Going on the history of others asking the same people to answer a specific question, I realise the likelihood of actually getting an answer is slim, but here goes -

Can you please provide the number of boat people refugees you would feel comfortable allowing into Australia over the next five years?

I ask this question to gauge how far apart we are on this issue. If you are thinking 1000-10,000 people that's one thing, but if you have no problem with letting a 1,000,000 come, then we are on very different wave lengths. Please be honest, tell us what you feel is acceptable, maybe we have you wrong.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Gee Whiz, it appears that so much is riding
on my answer to your question - How
many boat people should Australia take?
From your last post - it sounds like you've already
"prejudged," matters.
You want an exact number.
I can assure you I don't think it's in the millions.
None of our political leaders would allow it and
it's not a real or plausible suggestion.

However, lets see if I can come up with a magic answer that
will appeal to you.

According to the stats given by the Parliamentary Library
in Canberra for the period 2012-13 Australia granted
4.949 "boat people" refugee status - which was 2.5 per cent
of all immigration. That's one person for every 4,718
Aussies.

That's hardly a ripple in our overall immigration intake.

In the post-war years Australia accepted more than 170,000
people with a population less than two fifths of today.
Therefore, I believe that we can easily increase our
current intake. To what number? That I would leave to our
government leaders to realistically decide. They are the
ones who decide what our migration intake is - based on
economic sustainability (jobs, housing, et cetera).
I am not an economic expert.

Foxy,

Both your links are opinion pieces by authors mostly stating why the EU shouldn't adopt the Aussie policy, not why it couldn't work.

Besides coming from two publications that in 2013 were scornfully mocking Abbott's policy as impossible (Indonesia wouldn't allow it, and even if they did it wouldn't work). I guess they have scrapped enough egg off their faces to write the same garbage again.

The EU now realise that they have a workable policy at hand, the choice is whether they want to keep their hands clean or save lives.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I must admit that I am surprised at your reaction.
To me the arguments presented in the links cited did make
sense. Especially the geography of the region and the
difficulty of returning asylum seekers to the countries
they were fleeing where they were at risk of being
not only persecuted
further, but killed. Also they fact that the asylum seekers
had other alternatives in Europe - which would encourage
them to keep trying to flee.

In any case the comparisons to Australia's immigration
policies will no doubt continue as the number of boats
and the death toll rises in Europe.

We definitely need to have a broader conversation about
why people risk the dangerous journeys in the first place
and try to come up with better responses to meet the overwhelming
needs they face.

Of course Australia could assist by changing certain aspects
of our foreign policy (in the Middle East, Sri Lanka, Israel).
Which may influence changes in those regions.

A typical and predictable response Foxy. Do you enjoy sitting on the fence pretending to be the defender of the down trodden when in fact you cannot express an original idea? All those links you provide us, after reading them, do you still not have you own conclusions to share?

You say "I believe that we can easily increase our
current intake. To what number? That I would leave to our
government leaders to realistically decide. They are the
ones who decide what our migration intake is - based on
economic sustainability (jobs, housing, et cetera)." Isn't that completely hypocritical when you are criticising and unaccepting of the decisions our government has made?

Dear ConservativeHippie,

A tolerance of criticism and of dissenting opinions
is fundamental to democracy. Governing parties must
resist the temptation to equate their own policies
with the national good, or they will tend to regard
opposition as disloyal or even treasonable. A democracy
requires its citizens to make informed choices. If
citizens or their representatives are denied access
to the information they need to make these choices,
or if they are given false or misleading information,
the democratic process becomes a sham.

It is therefore important that the media not be censored
that citizens have the right of free speech, and that
public officials tell the truth. Therefore when
some leaders conceal information from the public, or
lie, their actions are contrary to democratic values
and damage the public's faith in political institutions.
Also this prevents people from using their rights in a
meaningful way.

Dear ConservativeHippie,

I neglected to add that criticising a certain
government policy does not equate to being
"unaccepting of the decisions our government
has made."

BTW - If you want to be taken seriously and receive
a response to your future questions. Drop the
insults. I tried to answer your question in good faith.

You came back with:

1)" A typical and predictable response Foxy."

2) "...sitting on the fence pretending to be
the defender of the down-trodden..."

And so on.

From all that I must assume that you really were
not at all interested in what I had to say. All
you wanted was an excuse to vent your spleen.

Well, I hope you feel better as a result.
I however, now know who I'm dealing with and what to
do in future.

Foxy,

You and I will clearly never agree on whether the ends justify the means in stopping deaths at sea, but my comments on your links were based on whether the boats to the EU COULD be stopped and not whether they should. There is a clear link between the number of people migrating via illegal boats and those drowning (about 4%)

Even your link to the Telegraph's article clearly shows that the turn back policy works.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/stand-firm-on-boats-says-tony-abbott/story-fn9hm1gu-1227358293135

For the benefit of those who don't have access:

"The Prime Minister declared yesterday that stopping the boats was the key to beating people-smugglers, as it emerged the EU was in talks with Tunisia and other African countries to establish an offshore processing operation that took inspiration from Australia’s regime....

The EU talks began when Dimitris Avramopoulos, the member of the European Commission in charge of migration, travelled to Tunisia last week. Other countries that might take part include Morocco, Niger and Nigeria.

The plan was backed by Britain, Italy and Austria with support from Germany and France.

The idea of setting up the camps was raised last month at an EU summit called after more than 700 migrants were killed in a ­single week in the Mediterranean."

Foxy

I simply asked you and Suse to share your opinion, to provide a number but neither of you could commit. This is the reason I said your answer was typical, because it was exactly what I expected, its consistent with most of your previous responses to questions.

Rather than stating your opinion (which is what the rest of us are doing) on what would be an acceptable number of boat people to allow in Australia over the next 5 years, you prefer to rely on the decision and policy makers to come up with a number. But the policy makers have done that and you don't accept the current position. So its a stalemate. You don't like what is happening and you cannot provide a suggestion for a realistic workable alternative that would be acceptable to the general population of Australia.

Criticising is one thing but if you cannot provide an example of a workable alternative plan, with enough detail so we have an understanding of what you believe is better, your criticism is no more than the 'venting your spleens' you accused me of. I'm trying to get you to engage in a nuts and bolts discussion but its proving to be an impossible task.

This world wide refugee problem is scary. I didn't expect the population would reach such a critical point in my lifetime, but now I'm worried. As more and more take to seas in hope of a better life on the other side, this could escalate into the biggest humanitarian crisis we have ever witnessed. The answers to these people's problems need to be addressed in their own country, or they will take their problems with them to their place of refuge.

There's no point in continuing to try to make you see sense. As I've said before, you can't awaken someone who is pretending to sleep.

Poirot quoted a European spokeswoman;
She said "the European Union applies the principle of
non-refoulement," or no forced return under international law.

There is a misunderstanding in that statement.
It is the proper thing to do to return a distressed boat to its port of
departure if practical.
Almost all on here confuse boats with passengers.
The port of departure is a valid place to return a ship.
Its passengers are incidental.

It should also be remembered that Islamic countries are not signatories
to the UN Human Rights Treaty. They are I suspect signatories to the
law of the sea.

Bazz, "It is the proper thing to do to return a distressed boat to its port of departure if practical"

I once went into the relevant IMO and naval agreements and guidelines, but the advocates and apologists here were not interested.

The US navy and Coastguard have very straightforward policy and operational procedures that can easily be found and is well representative, a model, of the international consensus.

There is no doubt the coalition's border protection policy has had resounding success, with few boats getting through. Moreover far less of these poor buggers have drowned at the hands of these unscrupulous people smugglers ? That doesn't account for the number who enter Oz legitimately through our Airports, intentionally overstaying their visas and simply disappearing into the larger Australian community ?

Somehow, I don't believe we could teach any European Nations anything about securing each of their borders, with this ridiculous EC that's been in place for the last forty odd years ? Apparently, Britain would like to extract herself from the European Union, and why not ? Eastern European criminal groups are setting up shop in London and the other larger provincial cities in the UK, while they can at least ? Thereby lies another tale I'm afraid ?

The Australian policy of returning the boats to their point of
departure obviously works. The main reason it works is that the people
waiting to get on a boat see those that went on the previous boats come back !

The photos of the boats heading for Europe have been overloaded by
what can only be vicious criminals. Towing them back could be dangerous
but must be attempted. Lifeboats like our navy supplied could be used
but either way it MUST be done.
The closer to the departure point the boats are intercepted the safer
the whole operation would be.
A number of the passengers on these boats may have never seen the sea
and have no experience of sea going boats because if they did they
would never get on board.
The passengers could with the help of the armed forces be dumped onto
a dock in a port but probably would be resisted.
Whatever is the solution the boats should be destroyed, if necessary by aircraft.

As the EU looks to secure the borders via direct intervention, as reported in today's news, perhaps the world does not regard Australia's border protection policy in such low esteem as those on the Left would lead us to believe. Common sense is prevailing.

A slice of mud pie anyone? Foxy, Suse-"it will be the end of humanity"-online, Paul, Robert, Inspector P?

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker warned
that Europe must do more than just react. It must
finally come up with a comprehensive plan that ensures
safety for those who deserve international protection.
"We must work on legal immigration - if we close the
doors, migrants will break in through the windows."

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tighter-borders-will-not-stop-refugees-deaths-20150421-1mpjm6.html

Well Foxy, we all know the difficulties of deciding who deserves
protection and who doesn't !
It is the old story of some spoiling it for everyone else.
The cheats are even schooled on what to say.
As far as I can see it is such a problem that the whole process falls over.
It must be next to impossible to decide if a Syrian left because they
had been threatened or left because they were fed up with the interminable warfare.
Can people who are fed up with the warfare be classified as refugees ?

I cannot see a solution except using the first safe country clause.
Libya of course is not a safe country but most would have passed
through Egypt or Mali or others, and many seem to have left safe countries.

Europe will have to get it all sorted out before the charity support
of Egypt dries up.

The whole UN treaty rules need to be rewritten to cope with what is coming.
It seems inevitable that Egypt will be the source of informal migrant
flows. It will be on a scale that has been unimaginable to date.

Fox, "'We must work on legal immigration - if we close the doors, migrants will break in through the windows.'"

Threats, huh?

You have tremendous gall quoting that to sledge by implication an Australian population that was generous well beyond fault in settling large numbers of displaced people after WW2 and relative to population has taken very, very large numbers of migrants ever since.

For donkey's years Federal governments have habitually set new stretch records for immigration. The population (over-)growth is due to migrants. It has been so high and has placed such a strain on State governments and workers through taxation to provide infrastructure, health and welfare that LABOR State premiers, examples being Bob Carr and Anna Bligh, went public on a number of occasions citing "huge and unnecessary pressures" on infrastructure, on available water and power and on taxpayers.

However apologists for open door immigration choose to ignore all of that. Why?

Fox, didn't you recently give oxygen to a publicly-funded ethnic support NGO that was lobbying the feds for immigration to be raised by 25% pa, to 250,000? That is before the extras of doubtful origin, character, background and motivation, courtesy of the people smuggler travel agents, that you would allow through the 'Open Door' you and Greens' SHY are spruiking for.