knockoff nige

That's a poor argument. No-one wants to see deaths at sea. No-one is advocating it. Te boats, they keep on coming. We have absolutely no idea how many anymore. So, please refrain from telling us on how lives are being saved. Using the argument that this policy saves lives is unproven and a distraction from the obvious real reason behind the policy. They don't want to deal with asylum seekers. But they can emotionally blackmail voters by claiming they have only the interests of the children on these boats at heart.

Beoz

Sorry I forgot the government are tight lipped. I thought it was pretty clear why but maybe its not. They don't want to advertise and promote asylum journey's by sea.

knockoff nige

Yes, there is a war against people smugglers, isn't there? This government are arrogant. If you are paying for a policy, you have a right to know how effective it is. Currently you don't. And not only that, they are hiding other facts from you such as putting asylum seekers on boats when they were already beig processed for asylum. That's not just wrong, it's illegal. Hiding the truth about mental health of asylum seekers currently being processed for asylum. Not allowing opposition ministers to investigate these.

Yes, this is all about the war on people smugglers.

Beoz

I think its outstanding forward thinking but you resorted back to calling the government names so I'm not surprised you don't.

knockoff nige

Outstanding forward thinking? Reintroducing a policy is not 'outstanding forward thinking'. Calling the government arrogant is hardly calling them names.

the troubadour

Would love to see him in The Hague prosecuted for human rights violations.

the troubadour

Perhaps the risks boarding small boats pose less a risk to live and limb than staying put? You have constantly failed to acknowledge treatment akin to torture and inhuman treatment going on in secrecy behind detention centre walls.

the troubadour

Well I'm pretty sure what your opinion is. Laughable when a call for a bit of compassion and the normal right's argument of following legal obligations entered into is classified as an attack on the right. Of course there is a racist element to the discussion. Boatloads of Saffies would be very unlikely to evoke a similar hysteria. Regardless of what a fair number of Aussies think about them.

the troubadour

Your colours are showing. The matter with numbers has been explained. Actually time and time again. Never has it ever been claimed that an uncontrolled population should be given permanent residence in Australia.
The Agreement entered into does not state that. Perhaps you'd feel less threatened living in Cornwall?

the troubadour

Are you a speech writer for Commandant Morrison or something? Or do you just believe everything the government throw's your way?

Beoz

So you drag it down to boganism, racism and whatever you can to make it sound more appealing. For what its worth, I lived in the deepest darkests depths of South London for nearly 15 years, probably one of the most refugee populated areas of the UK. My football team was 50/50 white guys, black guys, and refugees. We all got along great and are still mates today. So feel free to lose the racist and anti asylum seeking tag at your leisure and concentrate on a solution.

Beoz

If you have the wikileaks articles please share. I go off information available to me. Not speculation. I'm sure detention centres are not fun but that is the Australia's policy. Right or wrong. Limiting passage by boat limits detention centre usage.

Wol

For years there have been warnings about the future whereby millions will be attempting to relocate for a better life.

Actually, this is the case in the present. The USA is trying to cope with some 10m (known) illegals - and that is after several amnesties anyway. The EUSSR is seeing thousands trying their luck via Lampedusa (sp?) and elsewhere.

You cannot blame them, but the fact remains that at some point any responsible government has to either do what is the first duty of any government - secure its citizens from external threat (which includes economic threats) or allow unrestricted entry.

The same principle must apply to asylum seekers, whatever the numbers.

At some stage all these aberrant countries are going to have to bring themselves into some semblance of civilization - the West cannot do it for them by accepting million upon million, however deserving they may be.

knockoff nige

What is the economic threat from asylum seekers that travel by boat versus those that arrive by other (accepted) means of travel? The cost of border protection is greater now than under the previous government so I would like to know if there is another economic threat you're referring to?

You seem to be still stuck on the assumption that people want to take in all people seeking asylum. There is no evidence on this thread of that. Can we and should we do more?

paulry

Indeed! Give the man a medal.