Is Nauru going to be good enough for the refugees?

[mantra]

With negative reports filtering out about Nauru - termite infested buildings and wild dogs, will we be able to get the refugees there? The hunger strikes have started and it's going to cost at least a billion dollars to get Nauru liveable by some standards, although some of the younger male refugees could help clean the place up if they were genuine about seeking asylum. They'll have to go there eventually unless Gillard does a backflip.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/s ... 6458009260" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wild dogs?

[Rorschach]

I thought the termite infested building were on Manus.
Get a pest controller.
Seems sticks and rocks allow the locals to fend off the "wild" dogs...
Build a dog pound. Give 2 soldiers a job and live ammo. No more dog problem.

Honestly

[mantra]

They look well fed. They're probably pets but just guarding their territory. If they were savage - the Nauruans would have killed them off. I doubt they would be happy about the dogs being shot.

[Rorschach]

If they really are feral and a danger, they'd be happy for the removal.

[Plough]

I dont agree with off shore processing, but ffs Nauru will be a shit load better than what they are running from!

[boxy]

... if it's not, they can always go back.

[Rorschach]

The only reason for offshore processing is because of the legal loopholes etc that onshore provides.

[boxy]

Well, derr.

[AnimalMother]

Who cares if it's "good enough" for them? If they don't like it, they don't have to get on the boats.

[Jovial Monk]

You idiots are forgetting one big difference between the 2001 and 2012 policies. That one big difference allowed Howard to hoodwink even his supporters into thinking the Pacific Solution worked.