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?