It has now become quite apparent that the people and authorities of Nauru are incapable of integrating the qualified refugees they accepted.

Refugees are prisoners. They cannot blend from the camp into Nauru without risking their safety. Generally, Nauruans are very bigoted and violent towards them and the Nauruan authorities turn a blind eye to all of it. Australia cannot improve this innate situation with money, IMO.

We did not initiate this solution as a deterrent to irregular maritime arrival in the way it has become. Where prospective refugees may once have seen Nauru as a place of second class asylum, with some chancing it for of a life free of persecution, they having jumped out of a frying pan and into a fire.

I realize it has become a better deterrent now was initially intended, but at what cost to Australia's soul?

I cannot stand by my country on this any longer. The solution seemed fair and was worth a go, but now fails the humanitarian standard initially intended. The solution, which I have supported until now, has failed.

Oz should take NZ's offer to accept the refugees. What then? I do not know.

The solution has been 'ceased' already by Nauru. Those people still on Nauru have been offered OUR money to return to their homelands. But, they are hanging out in the hope of Australian government weakness, which usually raises its ugly head if they wait longer enough.

New Zealand? As they soon as they could obtain NZ citizenship, they would be heading here just loke so many real Kiwis do. These people are not refugees, they are country shoppers, who have been told that there is no way they will be settled in Australia.

Hi Luciferase,

So where are you going to go ?

Yes, New Zealand, with its annual quota of eight hundred or so, could take those people on Nauru: it might take the pressure off Australia taking twenty four thousand this year, in addition to the 180,000 migtrants. Good on ya, Kiwis !

Presumably, your position is that we should take people from Indonesia in leaky boats, who have paid exorbitant fees to smugglers ?

Okay: firstly, why should they have to come on leaky boats ? Why not fully sea-worthy boats ? Nobody drowning any more ? Sounds good.

Secondly: why expect people to pay exorbitant fees to smugglers ? Sudanese refugees in Kenyan camps can't pay bugger-all, so even that is discriminatory. Refugees shouldn't have to pay anything more than commercial travel rates.

Thirdly: then why can't people come directly here on commercial transport ? Why do they have to go through this stupid process of finding a smuggler and a boat, etc. ?

Fourthly: if people can come here by boat at commercial rates, then why not by air ?

Fifthly: if people can fly here, why just from Indonesia ? Why not from anywhere ? Anywhere in the world, including Kenya [see above] ?

So, yes, I can see your point: why not have a completely open refugee policy ? For the sixty million refugees around the world ?

Ummm, because ........

I'd have written your post myself, until recently, Loudy.

While we did not set out to be sadistic jailers, I do believe that's effectively the outcome because the Nauruans are not going to play ball, whatever is put on the table. They're just not cut out for multiculturalism, from their institutions down to almost the last individual.

But, it was worth a try. I think the Malaysian Solution is probably the next best step to aim for.

NO is not a difficult word to understand.

Australia should, must hand over the Detention Camp to the UNCHR, after all, it's their job to deal with Refugees.

If they refuse to accept the Camps ask them why.

Perhaps we could ask the Nauruans to send us some instructors to teach us how to treat gate crashing illegal country shoppers when they invade our boarders. Sounds like the Nauruans are smarter than we are, & treat them exactly as they deserve to be treated.

Hi Luciferase,

Sorry, where did I go wrong ? At what step in the logic ? i.e. if (1), then why not (2) ? And so on, down to step (5) ?

Of the sixty five million refugees around the world, how many do you think Australia should take ? Luckily, many supporters of refugees live fairly close to the city centres, and would have plenty of space to welcome refugees. Perhaps someone should start up a campaign to sponsor refugee families (perhaps Get Up ! could do it) to stay with their supporters here. That would be such a compassionate gesture.

Mind you, holding up a sign saying 'Refugees, welcome' or some such, might be just as compassionate, but without the hassles :)

Joe

Those lousy rotten Naruans! Those lousy rotten Australians? Hold on there is a theme developing here. Everyone is rotten except those refugees. As shown on Four Corners they were certainly better than the average Aussie or Naruans. Well spoken, good looking and so intelligent and their teachers told how wonderful they all are!
The ABC and the Getup idiots can take you lot for mugs but I cheer on the Government and the Tony Abbott solution! Yes I know it was others ideas but I know how mad it makes the "Say it long say it loud Refugees are welcome here" mob. I just did this for my own satisfaction and amusement and also perhaps OLO could ask Pauline for an opinion piece on this LOL!

Joe,

Nauru was humanitarian in aim without throwing down a welcome mat. It did the job of dissuading boat arrivals before morphing into what it has become.

Turning a blind eye to the facts on Nauru it is a blight on our national soul. It's not who we are IMO, although it is according to some posters here.

The Malaysian solution should be given a go. Regarding the 65 million, we are doing our bit through an increased orderly intake, and I propose nothing more

Hi Luciferase,

Most of us would be happy with an orderly intake, so if you are in support, can we assume that you are NOT in favour of disorderly intakes, i.e. people trying to come without the necessary papers etc. ?

Or are you in support of both, twenty-odd thousand through an orderly intake, and unknown thousands through currently illegal means [see (1) above, re leaky boats and exorbitant fees to smugglers] ?

The good thing to come out of this, maybe, is that, if Australia lifts its refugee intake to twenty thousand each year, that might shame New Zealand into lifting its game, above the current eight hundred per year. It's good to know that Australia can do at least one thing better than the Kiwis.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudy, are you purposefully being dim for a rhetorical purpose?

I do not support IMA's. I'm saying that Nauru is not the answer because it is failing a humanitarian standard.

The situation of qualified refugees there is not what we intended. We should call time on it and seek a different dissuasive mechanism, such as the Malaysian Solution.

Can't be clearer, can I?

Sorry Luciferase,

I'm probably too dim to be purposefully dim :(

I don't know what IMA means. Or what you mean by the 'situation of qualified refugees': I didn't know there were 'qualified refugees' on Nauru: by definition, they would be approved refugees, part of the intake. Have I got that meaning of 'qualified' wrong ?

I don't see how a Malaysian Solution would be any more effective than the Nauruan Solution: perhaps the reverse, given the current strengthening of Shari'a law in parts of Malaysia.

But I'm assuming that you are opposed to taking in undocumented or unapproved refugees who come by illegal boat ? That refugees should have to go through the process of filling out the right forms, etc. ? After all, with 65 million or so, far more refugees would have applied in the proper way etc., than could be taken in annually ?

Cheers,

Joe

IMA = irregular maritime arrival

Yes, qualified refugee = approved refugee. They cannot be part of the intake because they came as IMA's after the cut-off date Scott Morrison had announced.

That was the great dissader, come by boat and you won't be settled in Oz. The Malaysian solution upholds this principle.

Accepting the NZ offer would be a one off to end the inhumanity we have allowed approved refugees to be subject to on Nauru.

Jayb,

That's an excellent idea. The UN is always accusing Australia of not getting it right, so they - perhaps the Arabic or Chinese members - could take all refugees into their countries, given that they know all about it.

Joe,

You are not the one who is 'dim' in this conversation. I would rather be thought dim than be seen running down my own country and its right to protect its borders from maybe-refugees. As Banjo said, what's hard about understanding NO, you will not be settled in Australia if you come by boat.

...." I would rather be thought dim than be seen running down my own country and its right to protect its borders from maybe-refugees."

Allowing Nauru to continue is running down our country. Challenging inhumanity is not the same as challenging the right to protect our border.

Inhumanity and border protection do not have to go hand in glove. Humane solutions must be explored.

Nauru has opted out of the agreement with us. It is now their problem. Anyone who is left on Nauru can return home at our expense. This has nothing to do with 'humanity'. Grow up and get over yourself, you loony Left twit. These bludgers are not welcome here, and neither should they be. You call other people 'dim'. You are the dim one, you blithering idiot, traitor and malcontent. You are a disgrace to Australia.

If I respected you I'd take that as an insult.

"This has nothing to do with 'humanity'."

Of course it has, dimwit.

Lucerfras,
There is no 'next step', We have said you will not get into Australia and I expect we mean just that. We have offered to pay for their trip home if they wish, but maybe those remaining like it there.
After all it is warm there and they don't have to work. They have recreational facilities and medical care plus 3 meals a day. I don't know if they even have to do their own washing of clothes. Must be better that the sand pits they come from. I would like to know what is inhumane about the set up. Maybe we should lower the standard of the provided food or make it tough in some other way, like have to work if they want food. What about them building some infrastructure that will benefit Nauru.

If these illegals had it like others do in African or ME camps they would soon go home, Ill bet.

Banjo: If these illegals had it like others do in African or ME camps they would soon go home, Ill bet.

That's why I want the UNCHR to take over the Camps.

The reason they won't is because the UNCHR doesn't recognise them as Refugees once they have left the UNCHR Camps in the ME & neither should Australia.

Jayb,
Yep they came here as 'illegals' with the intention of gate crashing our country and as such we do not have sympathy for them.

We must continue to resist their entry at all cost. We simply say NO, "bugger off"

Here is a statistic to think about before you fill up the country.

From Sweden.
"fewer than 500 of the 160,000 - 2015 arrivals have managed to secure jobs. "

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/724302/Sweden-migrant-open-door-policy-asylum-sex-attacks-violence

That is like approx .31%

Worse than ours being in Australia over 5 years and 85% still on welfare.

For those with eyesight problems that is point31% .31%

LF

Australia is apparently faced with 2 unpalatable options. The first is to maintain the expensive and politically difficult detention in Nauru, and the second is to bring them back to Aus and in effect confirm the assertions made by people traffickers that once you land in Aus you will eventually get PR, starting up the illegal trade and drowning women and children, which is why the Pacific solution was implemented in the first place.

The option of letting them go to NZ has the obvious disadvantage that they can simply come to Aus when they get NZ citizenship. However, there should be the option of declaring them persona non grata effectively blocking their entry to Aus.

They don't get to Oz but to NZ, or, to Malaysia if we can swing a solution there. If we can, any future IMA's would go to there, where a more diverse culture exists than on Nauru.

Things haven't worked on Nauru because the Nauruans are incapable of assimilating the refugees, despite Oz giving the gov't 35 mill p.a.

Rather than seeing Australia's need as an opportunity for their own development, Nauruans are voting by their violent actions at the personal level and authorities do not intervene. Whether this is religious or racist at its base, I don't know, but the upshot is that approved refugees are barely better off than under the regimes they left behind.

I do not believe it is our aim to drive refugees back to where they came from by neglecting their plight on Nauru, but that is the way it appears.

Some may call me a traitor, a malcontent, a blithering idiot, a fifth generation disgrace to Australia, but I'll not abide by the morphing of the Nauru solution into what it has become.

This conversation is about as useful as the one on SSM, and how many cartridges in a shotgun. Even Lefty Turnbull says the illegals are Nauru's problem, not Australia's. Surely the rattiest ratbag should have grasped the fact that these people are not coming here. The system these people would like to bludge off is now in enough trouble that it is struggling to sustain the people who helped to build it. We don't want illegals. All over the world, people are fed up to the eye teeth with "refugees" and leeches. If the illegals rot in Nauru whinging, return to their homelands or disappear up their own backsides, that has nothing to do with Australia. We have been too weak for too long. We have allowed ourselves to be hostage to the lunatic, "progressive" fringe for too long.

ttbn: If the illegals rot in Nauru whinging, return to their homelands or disappear up their own backsides, that has nothing to do with Australia.

I keep telling you the solution is to hand the Camps over to the UNCHR, then walk out & leave them there. It's not a problem of our creation. They created the problem by queue jumping. If Australia walks out the UNCHR will have to step in. They won't because once they leave the UNCHR Camps in the ME they are no longer the UNCHR's responsibility. The UNCHR deems them to be Economic Refugees for which the UNCHR states it is not responsible.

Recognising propaganda: government financed ABC broadcaster needs to look separate from government to allow transparency democracy governments to look real. The poor journalism ethics allows many other media to criticise ABC 4 Corners.

Journalists are keen to looks separate from each other as though there weren't some centralised establishment spin doctor pulling the strings.

Why must posters jump to the obvious conclusions?

Democracy does not work. Democracy governments have too many opportunities to thieve money off tax payers. So citizens can't assume the worse... citizens are bombarded with transparency BS scandals.

Bad education mentally stressful pretend thought, allows citizens to jump to the first simple thought that enters their mind.

Allowing governments to control school curriculum and teacher training is a mistake!

I also suggest posters are keen to criticise, formulating wow language skills. Words don't prove anything. Where's the logic?

steve 101: Democracy does not work.

Neither does Communism or it's Lefty little brother Socialism.

steve 101: Bad education mentally stressful pretend thought, allows citizens to jump to the first simple thought that enters their mind.

Well for the last 30 years Education in Australia has been driven by the Left & their Socialistic Ideology. That's why Education Standards have gone down. Every five years there is a re-organization of How & What to teach driven by Left Wing Socialist Academics who have never been in the Workforce. They have only ever been in an Academic Environment.

Jayb,

Yes, and I acknowledged your sound advice. Perhaps Australia should go the full hog and dissociate itself from the UN altogether?

What do you think Steve is smoking?

the amazing thing is that Rudd/Gillard who created this problem now receive massive pensions for their fake compassion. And as the Plibersek, you would think would crawl in a hole. No instead she still takes the higher ground as demonstrated last night.

Yes, runner, and so will all the nincampoops who enter parliament in the future receive huge, unearned rewards no matter what fools they make of us and themselves.

Plibersek? Well,she has the hide of rhino, and is a plant of the cultural Marxists, pushing for even bigger government, bigger spending and more control over us.

ttbn: Australia should go the full hog and dissociate itself from the UN altogether?

I come from Townsville. When the New Years Day Tsunami Hit Indonesia the Australian Military were one of the first on the scene providing much needed Medical Help & other assistance. Finding people, providing food, water & shelter. I knew a lot of the people that were involved in this exercise & have been debriefed by the Commanding Officers at various Reunions/Unit Birthdays Etc. Some of information is Classified but as ex-military we are still held buy our Security Clearances. Also, not to mention numerous conversations with the Diggers involved on the ground.

Apparently the UN arrived at about the same time but only went as far as the best Hotel in Jakarta. The spent four months setting up for dealing with the damaged area without setting foot on the ground. The first one arrived four Months after the disaster happened. He spent a day talking to the Australian Commander & having a quick tour of the Devastated area by Chopper before returning to Jakarta.

A month later a UN Team turned up & demanded that the Australians hand over the running of the show to them immediately. The Australians refused because they UN Team had no one there on the ground to take their place. Diplomatic Channels got involved & the Australians were forced to leave. They did.

Since then, apart from the odd UN Survey & some well meaning speeches, all the Equipment left behind to help the Locals has been looted by the locals & no real help has come from the UN to help the people get back on their feet.
cont

cont.
I have a neighbour that went surfing in the Area about two years ago & he said the place is still a shambles.

So obviously the UN didn't like being shown up, so they sent the Aussies home. They have done nothing but talk ever since, without providing any practical help at all. Still staying in Jakarta's best Hotel for free for a few months & having deep & meaningful meetings is a good way to have a holiday in the East Indies for the European UN CEO Members.

Yes, it's about time Australia withdrew from the UN. South Africa is & the Philippines are pulling out also. The UN is an expensive toothless tiger.

Figures.

The problem with the UN is the makeup of its various committees.
At one time the Human Rights committee was chaired by Saudi Arabia !
Moslem countries that are very islamist are also on various parts
of the UN. The UN human rights was not signed up to by moslem countries.
They have their own, UN recognised, human rights.

Talk about hypocrisy, and they have the gall to critisise Australia !

We would all like to get rid of Nauru & Manus Island, but how to do
it without restarting the boats and aircraft.
We could just deport them to middle East UNHCR camps and be done with it.

Just tell the UN enough is enough !

Bazz,

Right. The 'human rights' section of the UN is chock-a-block with countries that don't bother about human rights at home. The UN is a rotten, corrupt organisation no democratic country should be involved with.

News just in: Saudi Arabia will be elected to the UN Human Rights Council this week for the fourth time in a row. These are the bastards who lop off the heads and hands of their own citizens in public.

ttbn: News just in: Saudi Arabia will be elected to the UN Human Rights Council this week for the fourth time in a row

They are there purely to monitor & stop any criticism of the Middle East.

They criticise us and take no refugees themselves.
I just don't see why the govt does not object to Saudi election to the
human rights committee.
We do not buy oil from Saudi so what do we have to lose ?

Luciferase

Would you be willing to fund your preferred solution yourself, along with anyone who agrees with you, and exempting anyone who doesn't agree?

Also, who's the "we" you are referring to, please?

JKJ,

I think it's pretty clear I want my country to pay for a more humane approach to 'stop the boats'.

I presumed I spoke for my countrymen when I said "we" did not intend that the Nauru solution would result in genuine refugees suffering, that "we" intended that they would find safety and a future on Nauru.

Obviously, from your tone and that of some others here, you never shared those intentions.

I apologise for my presumptuousness.

Luciferase: that "we" intended that they would find safety and a future on Nauru.

Wrong. That was never the intention. Why would Australia foister Islamic people onto a Christian Community against their will.

Hey Jardine K. Jardine,
I heard an interesting solution a few days ago.
That your taxes only represent the issues you supported.
A person would mark off a checklist of things they do and don't support.
And only have to pay for the issues they supported.

"..against their will"? Geez, "we" are worse than I thought.

Perhaps the reason is that "we" are not complete mugs. "We" understand that very few refugees will ever be settled in Green-voting suburbs. Perhaps I'm wrong ? Will you take a refugee family, along with all of your Green colleagues ? Such good-hearted people :)

In case you are proposing some relaxation on the flow of illegal entries, apart from the perfectly legal admission of roughly twenty five thousand refugees each year, are you suggesting that Australia should take in people who have paid exorbitant fees to come by leaky boats, and settle in Green-voting suburbs ?

Cheers,

Joe

I won't take them into my home because that would encourage more refugees to come by boat, displacing UNHCR camp refugees seeking resettlement here.

I propose we do something other than throw boat refugees to the dogs by putting them somewhere as dangerous to their health as Nauru has become.

I do not propose we do anything for those IMA's that do not qualify as refugees. We send them home.

I propose the Malaysian Solution be tried and refugees on Nauru go there, and any future boat refugees join them.

luciferase: I won't take them into my home.

Ah Ha!

luciferase: I propose we do something other than throw boat refugees to the dogs by putting them somewhere as dangerous to their health as Nauru has become.

It's only as dangerous as these Queue jumpers & the Greenie Groups want to make it out to be. Why aren't the Islamic abusers of the children Charged. Strange that.

luciferase: I propose the Malaysian Solution be tried

Why would Malaysia take on potential trouble makers? They have enough troubles with the ones they have.

No hand the Camps over to the UNCHR & wipe our hands of the situation. After all it's their job. Isn't it?

Let's clear up one thing here. Being a Refugee means you accept the first safe country you are taken in by. So! if someone leaves Iran, flies to Malaysia, gets a ferry to Indonesia and then on to a decrepit smuggler vessel to Australia they are not "Refugees.
Malaysia will accept without demur any muslim. Do not bring up the fact it is the most corrupt country in Asia. Then onto Indonesia another muslim country where they get the smuggler boat. They had sanctuary not once but twice! What they really want is Centrelink and lots of it!
We just need to keep going sending them to places without said Centrelink and the problem disappears.
Do not thank me it is just part of the service of being a retiree.

JBowyer: Being a Refugee means you accept the first safe country you are taken in by.

The UNCHR Convention states "Coming directly"

JBowyer: They had sanctuary not once but twice! What they really want is Centrelink and lots of it!

Exactly. They are not Asylum Seekers. They are Economic Lifestyle Seekers.

The UNCHR Convention also states that these types of people are not genuine refugees & therefore are not afforded the protection of the UNCHR Convention.

The very reason the UNCHR will never take over Australia's Detention Camps.

Jayb,

The leeches are interested only in countries with generous welfare payments. In Malaysia, nobody gets money without working for it. I will never forget on my first trip Malaysia, a guide saying with great satisfaction, "We don't tolerate lazy bums here". Not sure about Indonesia, but they don't throw money around. I don't think welfare is a feature of any Islamic countries.

But silly Australia pays ridiculous amounts of welfare out to no-hopers. On TV tonight, a single mother is dragging in over $52k a year, and Morrison is carrying on about how it's wrong how anyone taking on a job has to take a cut. Well, the simple answer is to cut welfare payments. If people doing bugger all are getting more than people working, we are stuffed. And the answer is not to raise the minimum wage, because that wipes out jobs. Cutting back on welfare payments is the only answer.

Err JBower, there is a flaw in your reasoning.
Can you imagine a refugee in risk of his life fronting up to a travel
agent in Tehran, buy a ticket to KL, then fronting up at departure at
Tehran airport immigration ?
Does that sound like someone fleeing in terror ?

Is there an airline link betweem Iran and Malaysia ?
Such a person would have to go via Iraq or Pakistan.
So there would be more than two safe countries.

No, the whole thing is one big racket and our politicians of both
left and right are too stupid to see it !

LF,

While I agree that Nauru needs to be dealt with, I don't agree with the left whinge spin that the asylum seekers are subject to abuse, or the racist allegations that the Nauruans are all violent rapists.

However, I still have severe reservations about the "Malaysian solution" as the Malaysians as well as not being a signatory to the UN convention are well known for being xenophobic often to the point of violence, such that I believe that they are still far safer in Nauru.

The other issue is what to do with roughly 10 000 of the 50 000 asylum seekers now in Aus that are clearly economic migrants?

Nauru became a signatory to the convention to do the deal with Oz and get it through our High Court. That doesn't mean life is any better for refugees there than it could be in Malaysia.

At least the religion of the great majority of refugees is shared with in Malaysians, and any assurances by the Malaysian gov't should be considered sincere.

Labour seriously thought it would get the MS through the HC and I'm presuming that.

Those processed as economic migrants, onshore or offshore, should be sent home, including those arriving by air.

Regarding the behaviour of Nauruans towards refugees, why are you sure what you know, SM, and why then would you say Nauru needs to be "dealt with" if the situation is as satisfactory as you believe?

Instead of secrecy, a selection of free representatives, who agree with the general principle of offshore processing and resettlement, should be placed at the centres and report openly to parliament regularly with ear to the ground information.

where I said above, "......and any assurances by the Malaysian gov't should be considered sincere", I meant assurances of intent. If it turned into a Nauruan type mess it would also have to cease.

Luciferase: At least the religion of the great majority of refugees is shared with in Malaysians,

You should have added, in Malacca, that's the only place in Malaysia that have a large population of Christians (Catholic). The National Religion of Nauru is Catholic. There are some SDA's.

I don't see why the Nauru Government would want, or allow, such a poisonous Religion to take hold on their peaceful Island.

"I don't see why the Nauru Government would want, or allow, such a poisonous Religion to take hold on their peaceful Island."

Well, it did. However, its people and police haven't responded accordingly, if at all religion is the root of their issue with refugees.

PS, Nauru has no "national" religion. Its constitution provides for freedom of religion.

Luciferase: PS, Nauru has no "national" religion. Its constitution provides for freedom of religion.

But, they are mostly Catholic, not moslems as you claimed.

Luciferase: <At least the religion of the great majority of refugees is shared with in Malaysians>

True but the Malay's don't want the Fanatics, which is what they are.

JB: Why would Australia foister Islamic people onto a Christian Community against their will.

Meaning the Nauruan's, who are Catholic. Not the Islamic Detainees.

Luciferase: I propose the Malaysian Solution be tried

Why would Malaysia take on potential trouble makers? They have enough troubles with the fanatics they have.

No hand the Camps over to the UNCHR & wipe our hands of the situation. After all it's their job. Isn't it?

Luciferase, Why do think the UNCHR won't have anything to do with the Nauru & Mannis Island Detention Camps? Can you answer that? What do you think there reason would be?

"But, they are mostly Catholic, not moslems as you claimed."
I didn't, but do continue.

".....the Malay's don't want the Fanatics, which is what they are."
Thanks for authoritatively clearing that up.

"....hand the Camps over to the UNCHR & wipe our hands of the situation. After all it's their job. Isn't it?"

Our responsiblity under the convention is to provide safe asylum to refugees we receive as IMA's. We've tried to achieve this with the Nauru solution, but it's failed. UNHCR is not our wet-nurse, we have to sort the matter out that we've created (albeit without intent, I assert).

"Luciferase, Why do think the UNCHR won't have anything to do with the Nauru & Mannis Island Detention Camps? Can you answer that? What do you think there reason would be?"

They are in our de facto jurisdiction and their safety is our responsibility. UNHCR would resettle them elsewhere for their safety, but it has insufficient "elsewheres" at its disposal and 60 million refugees. So it does what it can, point out our shortcomings in the hope we'll do better, which we should.

Puleeze don't say it's Nauru's problem.

Garbage Luciferase, these people have tried to make forced entry to our country. As such they are invaders, & should have been repelled.

As invaders they should have been blown out of the water, not carefully gathered up & provided with all the requirements of life on Nauru or anywhere else. They chose this line of action, & are entitled to nothing but repulsion.

Our kids & grand kids will suffer from our gutless approach to these invaders.

LF,

Paying $ms of taxpayers money to house feed etc to clean up the problem that labor bequeathed the country plus having to listen to the nauseating drivel from the greens and others is enough motivation to resolve the issue.

As far as what to believe, the looney left has been caught lying so often that it has no credibility.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/media-mudslingers-distort-the-image-of-nauru/news-story/e6330a8de43691a2b0fbd882ffee8a91

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/dateline-nauru-sifting-truth-from-spin/news-story/22ac3fac71e0df65fa0cab09b6ff2270

Dear Lucifrase,

You acknowledge you have taken a hardline position in the past but have been moved by irrefutable evidence to question the government's actions. This is something most would see as commendable.

The fact your seeds of humanity have fallen on barren ground here should not dissuade you as those tepid, fearful folk who are berating you hardly represent most Australians.

This quote from Cannery Row always springs to mind whenever I have the unpleasant task of tiptoeing through their toxic missives;
“...men in fear and hunger destroy their stomachs in the fight to secure certain food, where men hungering for love destroy everything lovable about them.... In the world ruled by tigers with ulcers, rutted by strictured bulls, scavenged by blind jackals.... What can it profit a man to gain the whole world and to come to his property with a gastric ulcer, a blown prostate, and bifocals?”

Welcome back Steelie. How come they let you back into the Country. Are you on their watch list?

Steelie, since the perpetrators of the assaults are of your ilk. Why shouldn't they be named & shamed? Why is the lefty Media trying to make out it's the Guards doing all the assault & not moslems detainees?

Hey Shadow Minister, you mention the Looney left, & one pops up right on cue.

Amazing aren't they! They have some looney idea that they have some special right to give away that that is not theirs to give.

As Magee said, the only problem with socialism, [ie. the left] is that sooner or later they run out of other people's money. She should have added other people's birthright to give away.

Here we have Lucifrase & SteeleRedux trying to hand out what they don't own, & the clown quoting fiction as if it has some value in the real world.

"You acknowledge you have taken a hardline position in the past...." if that means I have supported offshore regional solutions to stop boats, yes I have, and still do.

I just can't abide by what has evolved on Nauru, Steelo.

I don't think this makes me a saint nor part of the toxicity. You decide.

Dear Hasbeen,

You are the one wanting to slaughter men, women and children by the truckload and yet you have the temerity to call me looney?

You are firmly part of the 'peeing your pants' mob. Grow a backbone mate. Your fearful, bilious toxicity is a sad reminder that we have a small but virulent group that is intent on besmirching this country's reputation.

About as un-Australian as one could get.

Dear Lucifrase,

I get the sense you were a little taken aback by the baying mob on this thread. It was a bit harder for them to write you off as a leftie which would explain how strident they became. Well done for sticking to your guns.

SR,

It is sometimes said that democracy is the worst political system with the exception of all the others. Likewise the pacific solution is the worst way to deal with asylum seekers except for all the others.

It's funny that now the boats have been stopped, no one is drowning at sea, the number of people in detention has dropped by about 90%, and suddenly amnesia strikes those who brought about the problem in the first place.

Welcome back SR,

You may have to be a bit more specific about your claim:

"Dear Hasbeen,

"You are the one wanting to slaughter men, women and children by the truckload .... "

Do you mean that turning the boats back somehow leads to people being slaughtered ? By whom ? Where ?

Hyperbole is immensely satisfying but sometimes it can be counter-productive :)

Cheers,

Joe

Looks like Steeleredux's cage has been left open again.

Dear Loudmouth,

You asked;

“Do you mean that turning the boats back somehow leads to people being slaughtered ? By whom ? Where ?”

No I mean Hasbeen wanted to slaughter men, women and children although by the boatload might have been more of an apt description.
“As invaders they should have been blown out of the water.”

You might attempt to argue your point “Hyperbole is immensely satisfying but sometimes it can be counter-productive :)” may well apply to his comment, but I think your work will most certainly be cut out for you.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“suddenly amnesia strikes those who brought about the problem in the first place”.

I sure as hell didn't think humanitarians caused the wars in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps you would like to argue otherwise. The floor is yours.

SR,

You mean the Sri Lankan war that finished in May 2009 before the boats really started?

No I meant the monumental cock up by Krudd and Juliar after promising in 2007 not to change the Pacific solution, the 50 000 illegal immigrants and economic migrants, the 1200+ people drowned, and the legacy of a $10bn debt, 30 000 in detention incl 2500 children, and a massive drain on the economy for many years to come.

If you don't consider this cock up was caused by labor I hand the floor to you.

Steelie: Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps you would like to argue otherwise.

Sri Lanka: The movement of moslem's across the Palk Straight into a Buddhist/Hind/Christian Country. You can walk across it's only a Metre deep at high tide. That caused the trouble.
Afghanistan: The destruction of the half way Civilized old Government by a Radicle & Fanatic Islamic Taleban bent on taking the Country back to the 6th. Century.
Iraq: Two moslem Sects who have hated one another since the 6th. Century hell bent on destroying each other & turning the World back to the 6th Century.

Notice a similarity between all three. (moslems) Conclusion, where ever you have moslems, you have big troubles.

I notice in to days Courier. The Government is going to change the Law in the next sitting.

If you ever came by surreptitious means you are going home & never ever coming back.

If you are a Terrorist & in Jail, you're never getting out. Yippie! Too bad for the hubby, eh Steelie.

Hi JayB,

I'm not absolutely sure but I thought the great majority of Tamils in Sri Lanka have been there for generations AND are predominantly Hindu. Maybe I'm wrong :(

Hi SR,

Dear oh dear, here we go again:

Are you suggesting that if anybody tries to reach Australia by leaky boat, after paying huge fees to smugglers, should be eventually allowed to be admitted to the mainland and, in time, become a citizen ?

Is that a yes ?

If so, why .....

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Whoa there young fella, not so fast.

You accused me of hyperbole. I answered the charge. You have not acknowledged it and I would like a verdict.

Nor have you addressed Hasbeen's comment. If you deem it to have been hyperbole from him then why haven't you directed a similar admonishment to his way? If you don't regard it as hyperbole then why haven't you condemned it, or do you also regard a willingness to blast out of the water boats containing men, women and children seeking refuge as normative behavior?

steelie: a willingness to blast out of the water boats containing men, women and children seeking refuge as normative behavior?

Sounds like a Plan. These people are not seeking refuge. They are Economic Refugees seeking monetary gain. The UNCHR recognises that, that's why they don't help them in our Detention Centres.

I realise that you would like Australia to become an Islamic Caliphate, that's why you want these Islamic child abusers here. It just ain't gonna happen.

Well, Lucifrase has had his final answer delivered by Malcolm Turnbull - "The gates are shut". And, not before time. Labor has not said they are against it yet, but they have a lot of atoning to do for Rudd's stupidity, which caused mass drowings that they can use as an excuse, even though they have shown disinterest in protecting our borders.

ttbn: Labor has not said they are against it yet,

They will find a way. That's what the opposition does. They oppose for the sake of opposing. Nothing to do with weather it's the right, wrong or the best thing to do.

Intelligent people learn by mistakes made by people in the past, too bad our politicians do not learn.

Hear is a very bad statistic from Germany.
During the first six months of 2016, migrants committed 142,500 crimes, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office. This is equivalent to 780 crimes committed by migrants every day, an increase of nearly 40% over 2015. The data includes only those crimes in which a suspect has been caught.

Notice the last sentence imagine what the figure would be like if it included all crimes committed.

We really do not need this in Australia.

Dear Phillip S,

“Citing the latest findings from Germany's Federal Criminal Police Agency (BKA), on Wednesday the newspaper "Bild" reported that between 2014 and 2015, the number of crimes committed by refugees increased by 79 percent. Over the same period, however, the number of refugees in Germany increased by 440 percent.”
http://www.dw.com/en/report-refugee-related-crimes-in-germany-increase-less-than-influx-of-asylum-seekers/a-19053227

“The German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) announced that crimes committed by refugees stood at the same level as those committed by native Germans. These findings are the result of an initial evaluation conducted by the BKA in cooperation with all federal states and commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior.”
http://www.dw.com/en/report-refugees-have-not-increased-crime-rate-in-germany/a-18848890

So rather than quoting raw figures why don't you come back with some comparisons of your own. Are refugees committing crimes at a greater rate than native Germans in the latest figures?

steelie: Are refugees committing crimes at a greater rate than native Germans in the latest figures?

Still that's 142,500 crimes that would not have been committed if the moslems weren't there. Another good reason to get rid of 'em.

An important part is "The data includes only those crimes in which a suspect has been caught."

You fail to take into account a German citizen (just as would be the same for most citizens of any country) will be more readily able to identify another German citizen,so the clean up rates for crimes will be higher as well they may also be on police databases.

But ask the majority to identify an African or Asian they would be less likely so we need the figures for all crimes not just the ones where a suspect has been caught.

Given that there were about 1000 sexual assaults in Cologne in one night, either the assailants were previous migrant muslims or new ones that weren't charged.

If there were only 1700 odd assaults, that leaves only 700 for the rest of the year and the rest of the country? That does not add up.

I see that a permanent ban on illegal boat immigrants will enable them to be settled in NZ or other countries without being able to come to Aus later.

'cept the Kiwis won't come at it, SM, saying they won't accept them if it results in different classes of New Zealand citizen.

It does indicate that the Nauru situation isn't good in Gov't eyes and a solution is being sought.

Well then it looks like they will be going to the US or Canada.

I wonder if NZ will let them into NZ from there, or whether NZ is now effectively banning them.

Hi Luciferase,

Hi SM,

I thought I'd better separate out the salutations, otherwise OLO might combust.

If illegal refugees are able to get to the US, why should they worry about ever getting to NZ or Australia ? They've struck gold. Their relations would be so happy. Win-win-win !

Joe

Dear loudmouth,

Good to see you back.

You may have missed my earlier post to you so I am repeating it here for your convenience:

Whoa there young fella, not so fast.

You accused me of hyperbole. I answered the charge. You have not acknowledged it and I would like a verdict.

Nor have you addressed Hasbeen's comment. If you deem it to have been hyperbole from him then why haven't you directed a similar admonishment to his way? If you don't regard it as hyperbole then why haven't you condemned it, or do you also regard a willingness to blast out of the water boats containing men, women and children seeking refuge as normative behavior?

Cheers

Second time lucky. Bastard server, router, language, Gates, Jobs, etc., whatever, sick of the lot of them.

Sorry, I've been hosting friends, and then recovering.

About hyperbowl, yes, 'blowing out of the water' has a Hollywood, Rambo aspect, not usually leading (at least in the film shots) to 'slaughtering'. That's how most people would see it, a lot of extras throwing themselves up in the air - rather than someone slowly and methodically machine-gunning a crowd of innocent people. We'll leave that to ISIS.

And now I see it; I did answer you, which still stands:

"Are you suggesting that if anybody tries to reach Australia by leaky boat, after paying huge fees to smugglers, should be eventually allowed to be admitted to the mainland and, in time, become a citizen ?"

Is that a yes ?

Trigger warning: trick question :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

With respect no you didn't answer me instead you sought to divert with your question which had zero to do with the matter at hand namely the war crime touted by Hasbeen. There was no trick involved.

You have now decided to trivialise the proposed deaths of innocent civilians. Hasbeen has been very direct in wanting refugees in leaky slow moving boats to be blown out of the water, supposedly by his beloved navy. To most thinking people having high explosive shells tearing into flimsy vessels and the flesh of families fleeing conflict would be slaughter.

Perhaps when you are next belting out a hymn to your Lord you might want to reflect a little on what you are defending.

Have a nice day.

Steelie: To most thinking people having high explosive shells tearing into flimsy vessels and the flesh of families fleeing conflict would be slaughter.

But they're moslems. Who cares. Too many & we'll end up like Britain, best to stop 'em before they get here. If sinking a few boats stops them coming, so be it.

Never mind. If enough ignorant fools vote for what 3% of the population want in the Constitution, our Aboriginal friends will eventually own the place, and they will let anyone in. They are partial to Muslims. They meet a lot of them in jail.

Hi Steele,

I'm more concerned about the actual deaths of a thousand people at sea than the hypothetical shooting up of boats. Do you remember those thousand deaths, Steele ?

And after all, why should people come in leaky boats ? If they have paid thousands of dollars ? Why not sea-worthy boats ?

Would you therefore support ferries bringing people from Indonesia to Australia ? i.e. people without papers authorising them to land, being allowed to enter Australia ?

If so, why should they have to pay exorbitant fees ? Why not just commercial rates ?

And if by sea, why not by air ? And why just from Indonesia ?

Of course the dirt-poor refugees in, say, Kenya, would still have no chance, but as long as people had the fare, you are suggesting that they can come to Australia ?

There are sixty five million displaced people around the world. Many have filled out all the right forms to get into Australia, and waited. And waited. So, out of 65,000,000, what's your limit ?

Sorry to make you actually make a decision :(

Cheers,

Joe

Yep, close Naruru & Mennis Island detention Camps. Tell them they have got 3 months to make "other arrangements" otherwise they'll be put on leaky boats & pointed off towards America.

Approved Refugees on Nauru and Manus going to the US

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-12/australia-poised-to-announce-refugee-re-settlement-deal-with-us/8019472

I wonder how that'll work out now? Given Trumps win. I doubt they'll be going if they're moslems.

Hey JayB
I'm not sure, maybe they are planning on sealing the deal before Trumps inauguration on Jan 20.
It would be underhanded and disrespectful IMO, and could end up costing us more than it's worth depending on how Trump takes it.

Sooner than expected, no time to waste...
It's a one-off deal so they say.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-13/australia-announces-refugee-resettlement-deal/8021120