Originally Posted by GarryP

As I intimated, the solution is to deal with the root of the problem - and that is governments which are unfit for purpose and thereby setup situations where someone can claim asylum in the first place. No cr*ppy governments > no asylum > no asylum seekers.

So the question then becomes, how do you enforce minimum standards on governments?

As far as I can see, step one is to set those standards (which will probably mean no theocracies, dictatorships, etc.) In this world it would no longer be acceptable to be on the top of the heap - to be a recognised leader you'd have to hit minimum acceptable standards. Those standards would probably be based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And those that don't reach the minimum?

Well, two actions that I can see. First total and complete embargoes. Nothing gets in, nothing gets out - and if necessary you bomb the cr*p out of anyone/anything that tries to break the blockade. Every country today needs some input/output - even North Korea. Second, decapitation strikes. If you don't meet the minimum standards, you can, and will, lose your head - as will your cronies. No getting away free for the politician at the top because other politicians want to be nice to them - your head is on the line.

General upshot of such a policy approach is less sh*thead politicians, less genocide, and an all round better world, except for despots and politicians (and I'm not about to weep for them).

Now, you are probably going to say this isn't viable (though it is) - but if you are, you have to deal with the reality that trying to keep asylum seekers out via Tone's approaches are both illegal and unworkable in the long term (I can work out several ways they can be defeated). Once people have started to move, you've already lost - so the status quo is what isn't a viable solution....

Originally Posted by paulry

That idea is bonkers! http://www.zootycoonunleashed.com/ZT...ppy%20roll.gif

The world's problems are far too complex to apply a simplistic one size fits all solution.

Originally Posted by Wol

Those treaties were drawn up in a completely different era, and things have changed dramatically since then. As one example the population then was under 3Bn; now it's over 7Bn. The worldwide pressures are totally different.

No-one has anything but the greatest sympathy for the tens - probably hundreds - of millions who could legitimately claim aysylum status. Calling people bogans or racists misses the point (as well as being offensive). The point is that the prime duty of a government is to protect it's citzens from external threats. I'm not saying that allowing large numbers of asylum seekers is necessarily a threat in the strict meaning of the word but it's potentially an economic one.

The real issue is how many such people can be accommodated without causing real problems. An no-one here has yet answered my original question: if you don't believe in unlimited migration, you have to set a limit. Just what is your plan when that limit is reached? I keep repeating myself, because I haven't had an answer. When the limit is reached, someone has to make the decision to prevent further attempts - which puts us right back to where we are now. And the larger the limit, the easier it will be for the people smugglers to slip boat people in, and the more will be drowned.

No-one said it was easy.

Originally Posted by Wol

I'm not actually looking for "my" answer - any old one would do to begin with.

Originally Posted by Wol

Originally Posted by GarryP

and then



See, you are looking for 'your' answer - one that fits within your (incorrect) preconceptions and worldview. If the broader scale concepts, the big picture shape of the problem are laid out to you; you fail to take them in and understand what's being said.

You want to solve the problem within the context of the same kind of thinking that created it. And that doesn't work, and will progressively over the coming years be shown more and more to not be tenable.

Don't blame others because you don't want to listen or engage....

Originally Posted by Wol

You are referring to my ROFLs at post 223, and I think that answers my question. Unless your "solution" in post 222 is meant to be a joke, and I don't think it is, you just do not have a serious idea what to do. (To be fair, I don't think anyone does.)

It's been impossible for decades to get every country in the world to change clocks on the same day - which would make airline timetables etc etc so much more logical - and *that's* an issue which has absolutely zero adverse consequences for anyone. To imagine that all countries would ever agree on this issue is fanciful. Unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Beoz

Sri Lanka was mentioned earlier. To the best of my knowledge the recent vote on Sri Lanka was on past human rights abuses. Australia wasn't the only country to vote against the investigation. Others did too. And it was on the past ..... Not present.


Could be wrong though.

Originally Posted by GarryP

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-ed...324-35dws.html

http://www.hrw.org/asia/sri-lanka

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26765503

Originally Posted by Beoz

23 voted for it, 12 against, 12 couldn't decide. Hardly cut and dry.

Originally Posted by GarryP

The smell of politics

Originally Posted by paulry

And that is exactly what you'll get if you were to try and implement your plan. The idealist path was unworkable so instead of being prisoners to it - as the loony left were, Tony deployed plan B. It's not perfect but it's stopped the boats and the deaths at sea.

Originally Posted by GarryP

Still ignoring the above evidence are we?

He stopped neither, not in the short term, and not in the long term.