turn back boats policy doomed to failure

[not_an_eloi]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/barrie-on-asylum-seeker-boat-policy-dound-to-fail/4965582

anybody watch border security - australia's front line    7 network @ 7.30 last evenin'

reality   -  far from wot abbrot and cohorts would 'ave australians believe.

why's AMSA's site been gagged from givin' australians current incident reports.   hmmm ..

[**meep**]

---

@fiestas*girl wrote:

what would you do in  the same hypothetical

i don t claim to have the answers, i just know buying boats of  donesians inst a solution. ferrying people to christmas island because a smuggler has scuttled his bost is not the answer.

education???, educate the asylum seekers in the
appropriate way to seek aslylum ie join the line like everyone else, then I will welcome you with open arms, after your bona fides have been checked and our government kno

ws you are not a criminal

---

you might find this interesting http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/asio-sets-asylum-checks-to-light/story-fn59niix-122...

[*crikey*mate*]

hey,, I'm in favour of accepting assylum seekers, regardless of how they arrive! I do not agree with denying them entry.

What I don't agree with though is the appeal process. I think that there should be no appeals. If they are told no after processing and investigations etc, then that should be the end of it. I know that this means that some might get overlooked, but we can't help everybody, but we can help some.

[**meep**]

Both Julia Gillard and Toby Abbott agree that we need to ensure the people smugglers have no product to sell.  How?

[poddster]

Take the sugar off the table 🙂

If you are a refugee use the channels provided and apply in a lawful manner others did in the past.

Most entering in an unlawful manner are NOT asylum seekers, they are economic refugees at best

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@**meep** wrote:

Both Julia Gillard and Toby Abbott agree that we need to ensure the people smugglers have no product to sell.  How?

---

I don't know.

How do you ensure that there are no people in need of seeking assylum? The answer to that is world peace I guess. But when military forces are sent into placces such as Afghanistan to try and stabilize the government,,, the gov is condemned and people cry "bring our people home"

So, I guess if we can't stop the wars and the hostile gov's etc, we're just gonna have to keep accepting that people smugglers will always have something to sell.

A way out suggestion is for us to send our people over there periodically and collect them ourselves a la Schindler's List style, bring them here to safety and processing etc, return those that don't pass. Say we decide we can accept 1200 a year,,, then each month, we go over and esccort back the first 100 on the list????

[acacia_pycnantha]

There is already a "list" of people waiting in refugee camps around the world. We could go out and bring our quota back and then just send all new arrivals overseas to said camps to wait their turn.

I'm also quite happy to accept refugees, .... if they are genuine.

I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that the new policy is to deny an appeal only to those who have been categorised  as a security risk by ASIO.

[**meep**]

---

@acacia_pycnantha wrote:

There is already a "list" of people waiting in refugee camps around the world. We could go out and bring our quota back and then just send all new arrivals overseas to said camps to wait their turn.

I'm also quite happy to accept refugees, .... if they are genuine.

I thought (correct me if I'm wrong) that the new policy is to deny an appeal only to those who have been categorised  as a security risk by ASIO.

---

I've actually read about such a proposal somewhere...

[*crikey*mate*]

I don't know, it's out of my depth.

I wasn't thinking of those already in camps. I was thinking for instance of people in Afghanistan. Just people on the street. We have a strong presence there already and if people there sought assistance, they could make their way to "one of us" to be put on a list, or to our embassy or something,, So wherever the majority of our seekers come from, establish a presence in that area. Then get them out of the dangerous situation (and staff on the ground would have an idea of the liklohood of their circumstances) get them here for processing, and they either gain entry or get a no and sent back.

Again, we couldn't help everyone, but we ccould help some.

I think that no appeals should be allowed for any assylum seekers. I think that would send a pretty strong message and make some think twice before coming, wouldn't it? It might weed out a few who aren't sinscerely desperate.

I wonder how feasible it would be if we only accepted say boats carrying 6 or 10 or some smallish number people. Just refuse assistance/entry to boats carrying more people. So we wouldn't be renegging on our agreements, just placing restrictions on them. The upside is that it would probably not make it profitable for the current kind of people smugglers to continue with. But then mmaybe that will push the price up so high that the true seekers cannot get to safety at all. Although they could go to another country.

Just throwing thoughts around, no idea of how feasible they are, but it is somewhere to start.

[*crikey*mate*]

wasn't there some sort of immigration lottery in the past? What was that about? How did that work?

[fourandsixpants]

....I am in agreeance to taking in asylum seekers....so long as they are forced to take english classes, as is the recent proposal for newly arrived migrants. This should deter them all....(sarc)