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?