Well, well, this is as nice a bit of hysterical propaganda I have read for some time.
The only sensible statement is that ".......we should withdraw from the (1951) Convention......' Agreed.
People who arrive by boat are illegal and should be returned from whence they came, safely in planes, not leaky boats.
If anyone is lacking a moral compass, is guilty of moral bastardry it is the writer of this article who conveniently ignores the fact that millions of displaced people wait, more-or-less patiently, in terrible camps, under horrible conditions for a country to offer them a home.
The illegals displace these people and that is morally reprehensible. It is also morally reprehensible that people such as this writer advocate for illegals who not only put their adult lives - their choice - at risk, but also the lives of their children. Children have no say in the matter.
I, like many other compassionate people, would like to see our humanitarian intake of genuine refugess lifted and the processes that assess them streamlined.
But, I seem to recall that recently both sides of politics said our official refugee intake would not be lifted, or by very few. Now, this is also morally reprehensible because, if we can afford to house and support thousands of illegals, then we can comfortably do the same for genuine refugees.

Jennifer, thank you for yelling out what should be the bleeding obvious to every Australian with a modicum of intelligence and humanity.

It's been going on for many years, yet I still cannot quite believe what has happened to our country. I used to be proud of its caring response to the refugees from Vietnam and Kampuchea, for example, but no one seems to remember how nearly all of them settled into our community and, through their children and grandchildren, have contributed so much to it. Many survived traumatic warfare and fled to Australia in poorly equipped boats, on the way braving pirate-raids, storms, starvation and disease. Others spent time in refugee camps in other countries but we still took a significant quota of them.

After befriending some of those Vietnamese and Cambodians on their arrival and watching their courageous and enterprising progress in an utterly alien culture and land, I am inclined to say we should reduce skilled migration drastically and replace them with refugees.

And at the same time there should be a whole-hearted effort by Australia and other developed countries to find humane solutions to the displacement of people world-wide.

Instead we get this bleat from shrivelling hearts and vegetating brains: "Stop the boats!" How unbelievably pathetic!

Similar to Jennifer, you are on the right track about the boat people, Crabsy.

Certainly just stopping the boats, like Abbot, could mean not sinking the boats, but just as bad by turning them away with armored vessels, not interntionally sinking them, but having one sink just the same with terrible loss of life, as happened under John Howard.

Abbott's sentences can certainly be short and sharp, like his term - Just Crap - for Global Warming.

Regards, Bushbred.

You say:

But is that the point? Isn’t the point rather about being a country that cares about the morality and ethics of its way of being in the world? A country with the common decency to abide by its commitments?

Again, yours is a naïve expectation of a politician, one expectation in which I am sure you would not hold too much hope. In this country Australia, the moral and ethical argument disappeared like “Noahs Ark” when it grew ashamed to acknowledge its Christian heritage and the plethora of moral codes and ethics of Christianity.

The sheading of Christianity as a back-drop to society, has plunged that society into a void without a moral compass to guide it, and relegated decision making into a cauldron of emotive rule. Morals have been replaced by the fleeting nature of emotiveness and political expedience in decision making by the same politicians responsible for the simple welfare of desperate and needy refugees in a boat.

On the other hand, In Islam,(the religion of many refugees) the expectation of the weary traveller arriving on the doorstep of a stranger is to be welcomed as the servant of Mahmoud and to be treated as such. Imagine their disappointment on arrival in Australia with no corresponding religious ethics, even the most minimal a corresponding Christian ethic would afford; to be welcomed by a “Gun Ship” bearing an Australian flag; now would that fall into the category of bullying? It is a very sad situation and to me, yet another sign of western moral decay

Its all very well to bleat about what we should not be doing. The whole piece ignores what she thinks we should be doing in any practical sense. How about some reasoned suggestions about where we should house these unfortunate people, what jobs are we going to provide them with, what insights into life in an Australian community are they going to be given, where are their children going to school. These are the important questions to which these arm chair academics should be giving their attention.

David

Ibbit, did you actually read the article?

The whole point of it is that under Australian law boat arrivals are NOT illegal.

The point I am making is that we are inviting asylum seekers to seek refuge in this country through both domestic and international law, no matter how they arrive, or where they come from. As soon as they declare themselves asylum seekers our law says they are permitted to request proper processing to establish if they are refugees or not.

How can we turn around and blame asylum seekers for accepting our invitation?
That's the question you need to answer.

David, *she* is making extremely practical and fundamental observations about the law. I don't know how you could have missed it.

In this country our law says that anyone who claims asylum, no matter how they arrive, on boats, with papers, with money or without, is legally entitled to go through the proper legal processes to assess whether or not they are refugees and entitled to re settlement or not.

This is our domestic law. Therefore, it doesn't matter how much else you or anybody else rails and shrieks about it, boat arrivals are absolutely legal and have to be properly assessed.

It's the law. End of story. Asylum seekers come here because we invite them.

If you don't like it, get the law changed. If you can't be bothered doing that, I guess you'll just have to find a way to live with the laws of the country in which you reside, like everybody else.

Its seems we look after the world more than our own kind. Just look at the huge amounts of funding given, and why schools and infrastructure in general, are sadly neglected. Our pensioners cant even match the way the rest do, and if that's not bad enough....the government has the hide to ask you for flood relief.

http://tinyurl.com/4vgzn9r

Just shows how much money they really do have, doesn't it!

Yes Australia! let more rats in of their sinking ship.

Good people.....can I pat you all on the head?.....silence of the lambs....and what sound does a sheep make:)

And this is the government that cares for you...lol

BLUE

illegal immigrant Dictionary definition.
someone who comes to live in another country without official permission

i.e. enters the country without a visa.

The indicator that their method of entry was extra legal is the 5-10yr jail sentence for the crews of the boats.

The propaganda is try to PC wash the terms attached to the boat people.

Considering that about 20% of the boat people are presently refused asylum these are definitely illegals.

There is no other way to define the smuggling of people into Australia other than as illegal.

The boats are officially called “SIEV”; which means “Suspected illegal entry vehicle.” Therefore to my simple and legally uneducated, mind those aboard the craft are attempting to make an entry into Australia contrary to the laws of Australia. And so are suspected illegal entrants.

It would seem to me that a brief session in a federal magistrate’s court could change the word “suspected” into “proved.”

One other thing as a sovereign nation does not Australia have the right to pass whatever laws it thinks fit, to protect our borders. Further as a Sovereign nation does not Australia have the right to withdraw from any international treaty if it so wishes.

Perhaps Dr. Wilson would be so good as to advise us further on these points of law.

Anti Green -

The passengers on the boats declare themselves immediately as asylum seekers. Therefore they are no longer, in law, considered to be "illegal immigrants," because they have requested asylum. They are not trying to secretly enter the country and hide themselves amongst the general population.

In contrast, those who arrive by plane, with papers, overstay their visas and do not request asylum, are illegally in the country. There are some 55, 000 of these at last count. I don't hear anybody making much of a fuss about them.

The SIEV is a separate issue, and the crew and owners of such vessels are prosecuted, not the passengers.

Of course Australia as a sovereign country makes it own laws, and voluntarily signs international conventions.

We have made the law that says asylum seekers are legal entrants who are allowed to request refugee status, no matter how they arrive. If they aren't found to be refugees they can be deported.

We voluntarily signed the UNHCR Convention. The country you live in has voluntarily undertaken these commitments. No amount of complaining about it will change this. You have to either accept it, or work to change it, or leave and live in another country where the laws do not permit asylum seekers to request sanctuary. There are a few of those left.

When Tony Abbott says he's going to stop the boats and turn them around, he's talking through his hat. Unless he plans on breaking his own country's laws.

Briar rose is right

If you are against the law

Work to repeal it

Calling people names

Like "illegals" only promotes

Dumb fear and loathing

Actually,

Until such time as their status has been resolved and they are given residence, they still fall under the definition of "someone who comes to live in another country without official permission" the permission being the residence permit.

Which is why the state can detain them.

Thus they are illegal immigrants. Until such time as the definition of the term illegal immigrant or the law is changed the term is still valid.

If you want to white wash the language, then feel free to bask in your self delusion, but trying to label people as racist while using the correct, but non PC term is pure propaganda.

Jennifer Wilson like anyone that has a heart, pains over the inhumane conditions of refugees coming to this country.

I regret that these cruelties cannot be avoided nor diminished until we, in Australia, succeed in achieving a truly democratic mode of governing ourselves.

At present, any one with the gift of the gab can seize constituted levers of power over ordinary people as Ms. Wilson, those who comment on her posting, me and everyone in the country.

Great help toward humanizing governance would start if people, who have the mental energy displayed by Wilson, put under observation the fundamental traits of a Politician (or anyone that vests the mantel of Privilege) and divulged the findings.

I have lived under Fascism since its inception in my country of birth and the memories that cannot be suppressed tell me that a Politician, a power grabber charlatan, cannot possibly harbor within his being any shred of humanity.

It is only when the attributes of Power are duly laundered that we can see clearly what makes of us a bunch of Bastards.

Machiavelli made an attempt at debugging the beast and the roots of his work should be critically re-examined under today light.

Light not distorted by Educational Corporations.

Shadow Minister,
They actually come under the definition of 'People seeking asylum in another country after fleeing their homeland."
It is not illegal to seek asylum in this country.
The State does not detain them because they are illegal immigrants. They aren't illegal immigrants therefore they cannot be detained as such. They are asylum seekers.

Every country that accepts asylum seekers detains them for varying amounts of time, for health and security checks, not because they are "illegal."

Every country can of course decide the term of detention - in Australia it is indefinite. In many countries it is weeks or a couple of months, then the asylum seekers are allowed to live in the community until their refugee status has been established.

Illegal immigrants are deported if and when they are caught. They have no rights to refugee status and do not go through the processes of assessment.

They are entirely separate categories.

No propaganda, neither a collusion, just a firm believer in survivor of the fittest. No help should have been rendered help to the sinking boats. This would have been the best thing to do.

Let nature take its course.

Diver Dan lambasts Christian Australia whilst the refugees move through five Islamic countries? Tell me Dan are the Islamists refugees picking their economic favourite? That would be discrimination surely? Or are these countries NOT letting them rest but moving them through?
It really annoys me when people like the diver libel Australia and Australians! Try some of this in any of the Islamist countries and see where it gets you mate?

Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they
immigrants.
The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognizes that refugees have a lawful
right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether
they hold valid travel or identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what would usually be
considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a
person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without
authorization as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum.
In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorized entry into
Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply
by arriving on boats or without authorization.
Australian.



Compared to other refugee-hosting countries, Australia receives a very small number of asylum
applications. In 2009, Australia received 6 170 onshore asylum applications, just 1.6% of the 377 160
applications received across 44 industrialized nations. Of these applicants, 2 726 arrived by boat – a
mere 0.7% of the total number of asylum applications in industrialized nations. In the same year, over
77 000 asylum seekers arrived by boat in Yemen, a developing country with a GDP per ca-pita of just
over $US1 000 (compared to Australia’s GDP per ca-pita of over $US45,000)5; and almost 1 500
asylum seekers arrived by boat in Malta, a country of less than 420 000 people.6
No. of irregular arrivals by sea, by country 2006-097
Country 2006 2007 2008 2009
Australia 60 148 161 2 726
Greece 9 050 19 900 15 300 10 165
Italy 22 000 19 900 36 000 8 700
Malta 1 800 1 800 2 700 1 470
Spain 32 000 18 000 13 400 7 285
Yemen 29 000 29 500 50 000 77 310....

And I wonder how many more next year.....

Briar Rose,

Utter, shrill, nonsense,

Under you definition, if all the millions of displaced persons showed up on our doorstep tomorrow, we would be obligated to take every last one of them. This is insane and no-one beyond a few crazies would accept it. Yet this is the core of your argument.

But we cannot take all the worlds refugees. We have a quota of roughly 15,000 a year. It is our right to make such a determination.

You continue to ignore the OBVIOUS social justice implications of preffering "wealthy" boatpeople to the poorer (and law abiding) refugeees in camps across the world. In what world must you live to believe that these people have greater claim than those without the money to pay people smugglers, or those who accept our rules for claiming refugee status?

Contrary to your hysteria, we DO have the right to decide who comes to our country. We do NOT invite these people on their boats (except that under the current labour policy they are more likley to achieve refugee status). All of these boatpeople engage people smugglers (criminals) with rickety boats, often paying up to ten thousand dollars for the privilege. Any law abiding person who payed 10,000 dollars for a ticket from Indonesia to Australia would expect first class treatment, champagne etc. Boatpeople KNOW they are breaking the law. so do people smugglers.

Its people like you who complained that the Navy didn't protect the boatpeople who recently came to grief on Christmas Island. The same boatpeople travelling in huge seas, at night, doing their level best to AVOID the navy.

Howards policy worked. Any honest look at the statistics on arrivals by boat makes this abundantly clear.

We have the right to decide who comes to our country and who doesn't.

Anyone encouraging refugees to pay people smugglers a small fortune to convey them to Australia, on rickety boats, risking their lives, their childrens, and the Navy personnel, should be ashamed of themselves

PaulL

We may not be obliged to permanently settle millions of new arrivals, but we would be obliged to admit them. That's exactly what has happened in Pakistan, Ethiopia, Kenya and many other countries readily accessible to refugees from neighbouring trouble spots. There are more than 1.5 million refugees in Pakistan:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e487016

The few who make it here are a tiny proportion of the total of the world’s refugees, and a very small proportion of our total migrant intake. The inconvenience they impose is insignificant, especially compared to the burden carried by many other, much poorer, countries.

I am saddened by the increasing callousness and lack of compassion we display towards these people, and the lack of proportion in much public debate on the magnitude of the problem.

Technically it can be argued they are all illegal immigrants until they can be prove themselves to be genuine refugees.

Then again, they could as easily be considered refugees until proven otherwise.

It depends of whether they are considered innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?

Refugees and asylum seekers are two different classifications.

Also, the notion of "passing through five Islamic countries" is not only incorrect, it's also misleading.
There are only a handful of UN Convention signatories that are obliged to take them and we are one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Refugeeconvention.PN

Those who arrive by sea, or if they flew in on chartered private light planes or whatever, contrary to border controls may not be 'illegal', but until each individual's claim for asylum is established they have arrived contrary to immigration law.

Or are those who state that all people who arrive by boat contrary to law are 'legally' here? If that is the case they are establishing a defence for those who seek to enter Australian territory with other less than legal intentions.

At best 'boat people' are unauthorised arrivals, whose claims and identity have to be determined. As they have not entered Australin territory within migration law, it is a convenient shorthand to call them illegals. They remain illegal until their claims, if accepted, are determined by law.

Or doesn't anyone else get that idea?

Jennifer Wilson

Shows that "illegal" is used

As propaganda

Convenient for

Some perhaps, but their motives

Are quite obvious

The term illegal immigrant was common usage by the authorities a decade ago, and is still used in some official documentation in spite of being politically incorrect.

It is illegal to enter the country without official permission, and until their status is resolved, (many of whom are refused) they are not legally entitled to be in Australia.

Until the law or the dictionary definition is changed, the detainees are illegal immigrants

Would you all please look at
http://fora.tv/2010/07/29/Nomad_From_Islam_to_America_with_Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Reading the above posts I am beginning to understand some of the subtleties of the argument.
An individual makes an illegal entry to Australia. He/she utters the magic words, “asylum seeker”
to an appropriate official. Low and behold, he is now neither a legal nor illegal until his claim is verified by the appropriate immigration officials. If the claim fails he/she reverts to being an illegal. However, he/she can now appeal to the courts to have the illegal status reverted. Again he/she is in a state of limbo.

Eventually, if the High Court of Australia does not support the asylum seeking claim then he/she is again an illegal and can be deported.
While the claim is been assessed either by officials or the legal process the individual has limited human rights and can be held in detention.

I accept the assurance that mandatory detention is not a punishment as the individual has not been found guilty by a court. Therefore a detention centre can only have a superficial resemblance to a prison.

Of course if the boats could be stopped at source, then this immigration farce over legal/illegal would cease, lives would be saved from perilous sea crossings in leaking boats and finally the poor Australian taxpayer would benefit.

A red herring is being dragged in front of us and as usual a large percentage have followed it.
There are around 180,000 migrants brought into Australia “legally”. About the same amount have in the past been brought in on “special “ visas, because we are supposedly desperate for “skilled “ workers.
In one year 2008, the population of Australia, including net births, went up by 600,000.
How can perhaps six thousand “boat people” possible affect the Australian way of life?
Get real people. The influx of legal migrants is simple to provide a large pool of what eventually will become a supply of cheap labour and is being promoted by big business who are the beneficiaries,
The so called “boat people crisis” is to divert the attention of the masses away from what is being done to them, reducing their standard of living, by flooding the country with cheap labour.
We need to do two things to sort this out.
1. Subtract the number of boat people from the amount of legal migrants.
2. Impose a levy on big business to educate our own workers and provide the skilled workers we need.
Also to save immense amounts of money, we should give up all this offshore processing nonsense, build accommodation near each major city staffed by locals which would act as a stimulus and help the GFC.

Sarnian,

"1.Subtract the number of boat people from the amount of legal migrants."

The number of refugees accepted into Australia each year is about 13500.

Each boat person accepted displaces a refugee through the legal channels that are assessed on need.

Skilled migrants coming to the country are paid for by business and whilst not receiving medicare or subsidised schooling immediately begin paying tax.

The refugees are usually not immediately employable and require housing spending money, language lessons etc, costing the taxpayer up to $50 000 p.a. for the first few years.

Shadow Minister, et al:

The UN Refugee Convention, to which Australia is signatory, recognises that refugees have a lawful, yes, that's lawful right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum.

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered an illegal action, eg entering a country without a visa, should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum.

Australian law, in line with the Convention, also permits unauthorised entry for the purposes of seeking asylum.

Therefore, under Australian law, and under the terms of the Convention we have signed, a person who is seeking asylum has the legal, yes that's legal right to enter this country without papers, and by any method of transport, and has the legal right to remain in this country, until his or her refugee status is established through the proper legal processes, to which, as asylum seekers, they are legally entitled.

This was all re-affirmed by the High Court of Australia in November 2010.

Instead of perpetuating the dissemination of highly inaccurate and misleading information, you could do some research and educate yourselves as to the legal standing of asylum seekers in this country, and the legal differences between asylum seekers and migrants.

It isn’t rocket science and it isn’t hard to find these things out. In fact it’s so easy I’m beginning to think you don’t really want to know.

Sorry, posters, I see I haven’t signed off as Jennifer, only Briar Rose. I’m not trying to conceal my identity, I just forgot.
Jennifer Wilson.

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that those seeking refuge and fleeing from whatever are supposed to stop in the first country they reach.
Most don't do this, so they must be illegal on this basis alone.
Briar Rose - or is it Jennifer? has no compassion for those displaced by illegal boat people.
Makes you wonder why.
The sooner we have a change of Government and withdraw from this nonsensical UN Convention, the better of genuine refugees will be as will the Australia taxpayer.

Ibbit, if you think a Coalition government will withdraw from the UN Convention, you're in for a shock.

Just ask yourself why did the Howard government excise Ashmore Reef, and Christmas Island, then set up Nauru, when all they really had to do was revoke our domestic law allowing asylum seekers entry, and withdraw from the UN Convention?

This debate has nothing at all to do with me personally. It is about Australian law and what is permissible under that law. Ad hominem slurs against me won't change the reality of the laws we all have to live under

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf

Jennifer to quote the convention:

"Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they presentthemselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

The phrase "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened" is of particular relevance.

Your assertion that " a person who is seeking asylum has the legal, yes that's legal right to enter this country without papers, and by any method of transport," does not apply to those taking a boat from Indonesia, where their life is not threatened, especially those that have resided there for an extended period.

The quandary is that once on Australian territory, they cannot be deported back to Indonesia. Thus the government is left with the choice of returning them to their countries of origin or providing them with Protection.

Habeas corpus does not permit those with legitimate rights to reside to be detained.

The convention also allows for the return of refugees once the situation in their country has stabilized, thus the TPVs are a legitimate solution.

You still have failed to address the previous issue of the boat people taking asylum places from those more deserving.

Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Refugees cannot request asylum in those countries that aren't signatories. They can only live in camps, and have no rights to work etc. That is why we cannot return them.

How would you suggest an Iraqi asylum seeker, for example, access Australia without moving through another country, usually countries that are not signatories and don't offer asylum?

Asylum, BTW is not just living in a camp. Asylum is the chance to work and live a free life.

The government is not in any quandary. We have agreed to be a country of asylum. We have processes for assessing refugee status. We can deport those who do not fulfill the requirements. We have voluntarily agreed to this situation. What is the quandary?

The only quandary is that which is manufactured for political purposes. It is extremely straightforward if we abide by our nation's laws.

Those with legitimate rights are indeed detained, until those rights are confirmed.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I had agreed to enter into any discussion on the question of boat people taking places from the more deserving. All I would say on this aspect is that it matters very little if at all in the law, who is more or less deserving in this situation. Boat arrivals requesting asylum have to be justly treated under our laws. That is the reality. We can't refuse them because somebody else might be more deserving. There really isn't anything else to say about it, unless you want to change the law.

TPVs have been found to cause enormous psychological damage. Why would you advocate this additional torment? There are probably circumstances under which temporary protection is appropriate. But you cannot expect people to live for years in that limbo, and that is not the intention. It's TEMPORARY protection in specific short term situations, and there aren't many of those.

None of these arguments actually mean anything - the law says what it says. It has to be observed or changed. That's my point
Jennifer

Perhaps we should go back to the practice adopted by the navy in the early part of this century and sink a few boats. That was the main cause of the flow stopping. Don't tell me it didn't happen. Some sailors who were out there will confirm it if you ask them nicely.

David

Jennifer complains about the propaganda and collusions at the heart of the “stop the boats” debate -–then adds some of her own.

Confronted by Tony Abbot claim:“We stopped the boats before, we can stop then again”
She professes bafflement --but she had two options:
1)Looking at what his party did “before" might give a good indication of what he planned to do next time around, or
2)Looking at what happen to the illegal Papuan boat-–just last month--might also give a clue as to what can be done when there is a will.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/immigration-starts-deporting-papua-new-guineans-claiming-australian-citizenship-as-another-boatload-arrives/story-e6freoof-1225975957261

Instead, she launches into the following, colourful speculation: “Will he fire on the vessels that disregard ,risking death and injury to asylum seekers and their children, in international water …will we kill and maim them”

Jennifer makes much of our need to meet our “international obligations”, but she only wants to talk about the Refugee Convention.There is another convention which we signed, the UN convention against people smuggling, which requires us to crack down all forms of people smuggling.
Where does she talk of our “international obligations” under the anti-people smuggle convention?

Her account of asylum seekers reads like a fairy tale, they are:“people with drive, ingenuity and courage” , “seek(ing) sanctuary” in “democratic” Australia , only to find successive Australian governments through “indefinite” detention and TPVs create “uncertainty” which “manage(s)to achieve what the Taliban could not”
Unfortunately her whole sorry tale is undermined by a few unco-operative facts:
1)Many have flown into Indonesia business class, ingenuous, yes –but hardly courageous!
http://www.smh.com.au/national/revealed-smuggler-arrested-over-gangs-plot-to-ship-afghans-here-20100711-105p8.html
2) After getting residency in OZ , many return to places they told us endangered their lives ,courageous perhaps –but hardly honest!
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/04/13/1175971353190.html
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/21/15098766.html

(and incidentally, contrary to her spin, TPVs are perfectly acceptable under the refugee convention) .

But what is Jennifer’s alternative?
Set them all lose on the community while they appeal and re-appeal their cases.
Well, its been tried already in Canada – and it failed dismally.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/agents-promise-tamils-boats-to-australia/story-e6frg6so-1225948082054

In one of her concluding remarks she says: The “asylum seekers …are an easy target”
-Nah! it’s Australia that’s the easy target.

*We can't refuse them because somebody else might be more deserving. There really isn't anything else to say about it, unless you want to change the law.*

That is exactly why the law needs changing and updating, Jennifer.
The law is being shown to be an ass, full of loopholes, hardly
assisting the most needy.

Hitler was the law once, slavery was the law once, they were not
particularly good laws.

If the law becomes an ass, change the law. Its quite simple really.

So Yabby, what's your explanation for Howard not changing our asylum seeker laws when he had the chance?

Instead he introduced new laws to excise islands; he built a new detention centre on Nauru at great expense to the taxpayer.

But he didn't change the laws and make all that unnecessary. He didn't ever suggest we withdraw from the UN Conventions. He didn't ever suggest we change the domestic laws.

Why not? When all he had to do was rescind the domestic laws that offer asylum, and withdraw from the UN Convention and bingo! No more asylum seekers. No more boat people. Controlled immigration only. No more costs to the taxpayer of keeping people in detention. No resettlement costs. Nada. All over.

But he didn't do it, did he? Why not?

All you Coalition supporters of Howard's great achievements in stopping the boats, how do
you explain him failing to take the one action that really would finally stop the boats, and all asylum seekers except those we invited, for all time?

Weird, eh?

*So Yabby, what's your explanation for Howard not changing our asylum seeker laws when he had the chance?*

I have no idea Jennifer, but then I don't generally think like
a politician, ie to win the next election at any cost. I try to
think more like a statesman, ie what is in the long term interests
of the country and what is just and fair.

BTW, I was not even a Howard fan.

Perhaps Howard thought that the squealing chardonay left would
squeal so loudly, as their emotions dominated any kind of reason,
that it was not worth the political noise, as he could solve the
issue in other ways.

You'd have to ask the Liberal party that one, not me.

Interestingly I've read since then that attitudes have changed in
Europe and that even Tony Blair was calling for change, as Europe
has been overrun with economic migrants posing as asylum seekers.

So I think that any politician with a set of testicles could indeed
bring about those changes, which are well overdue.

But then again, I'm no political strategist, I'm about laws being
fair and sensible and functional. Laws are there to be changed, if
they are not achieving their desired objective.

Jennifer,

As I pointed out, the term illegal immigrant applies to those who enter the country without authorisation. Whether they legally can claim the right to do so actually is irrelevant. The boat people are unauthorised. The term illegal does not refer to law breaking rather the "extra" legal method of entry.

Secondly, as I pointed out, the convention does not apply to those who do not arrive directly from the point of conflict.

Thirdly, the convention does not require permanent residence, and only recommends naturalisation after a period of residence. TPVs are entirely within the convention.

As to the "stress" inflicted by TPVs in comparison with the 150 lives lost at sea in the last few months, the proven deterrent factor of the TPV is by far the lesser of two evils.

The question that you were deliberately avoiding re the boat people displacing other refugees is one that splits the refugee issue from the method of transport. The total number of refugees does not waver from 13500, thus the issue is no longer one of refugee advocacy, and now becomes one of whether more damage is done by refugees dying at sea or "stress" from the handful of detained refugees under the pacific solution.

It all boils down as to which policy inflicts the least harm, and so far the pacific solution wins hands down.

The following world map shows the countries that are UN member states and signatories to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and/or its 1967 Protocol.

http://www.unhcr.org/4848f6072.html

When Afghanistan is located on the map it can be seen that there are four member UN states which are signatories to the Refugee Convention that actually border Afghanistan, and there are four more countries that are only one country away. The asylum seekers are of course permitted by the refugee convention to cross the borders to enter these nearby countries.

The UNHCR’s prefered solution is that refugees are resettled in their home countries when safe to do so (in fact tens of thousands of Afghans have already returned to Afghanistan). If this is not possible the UNHCR then prefers that refugees are resettled in a neighbouring country of similar culture. The very last resort proscribed by the UNHCR is for resettlement of refugees in a far away third country. Additionally the refugee convention does not oblige countries of refuge to offer permanent residency nor does it oblige countries of refuge to offer family reunion.

The relevant question is why do Afghani asylum seekers “fleeing persecution” pay many thousands of dollars to people smugglers to reach far away Australia when there are at least eight countries nearby of very similar religion and culture which are signatories to the UN Refugee Convention where they can seek UNHCR refuge

A very great number of the asylum seekers entering Australia’s migration zone are able bodied men coming from Afghanistan. They are able to pay people smugglers many thousands of dollars - newspaper articles cite a cost of $10,000 to $15,000 per person - although the per capita income of Afghanistan is around $800 per year or about $2 per day.

In contrast, the most vulnerable refugees in the world are single women and children living in squalid refugee camps in Africa and Asia. They live in poverty and destitution and are forced to deal with hostile locals, an almost total lack of economic opportunities, frequent gender based violence, high rates of crime and food shortages. They are obviously unable to pay many thousands of dollars to people smugglers, they have barely enough for daily survival.

The asylum seeker issue is seen by many Australians as a issue of fairness. It greatly offends the sense of fairness of many Australians that able bodied men paying many thousands of dollars to people smugglers can claim places in Australia’s refugee resettlement program ahead of those in much greater need, especially vulmerable women and children found by the unhcr to be refugees in very great need of resettlement.

It is most perplexing why refugee advocates seem to have almost infinite sympathy for asylum seekers able to pay many thousands of dollars to people smugglers to arrive in australia’s migration zone, while completely ignoring the plight of vulnerable unhcr refugees living in destitution in squalid refugee camps who are unable to pay people smugglers. Very selective compassion indeed !

The point of my article is that Australia advertises itself as a Western democratic signatory to the Convention, with domestic laws that correspond with international requirements.

Of course asylum seekers seek refuge here. Australia cannot discriminate against their method of travel, their country of origin, their financial circumstances, or anything else. Our law does not allow that.

The asylum seekers are responding to Australia’s invitation. They do not have to fulfil any requirements other than asking for asylum to be allowed into the country, and then assessed for refugee status.

You are all wasting your time railing about boat arrivals. The law says they can come. End of story.

Shadow Minister, you seem to be determined to ignore the Refugee Convention, and corresponding domestic law, which states that what would usually be considered an illegal act, i.e. entry without papers, should not be treated as an illegal act if the person is seeking asylum. In the terminology and context of the Convention, and domestic law, illegal does indeed refer to breaking the law.

As I said in a previous post (not ignoring the question at all) TPVs may have their place, provided they are temporary, according to the circumstances in the country of origin, and not being renewed for years leaving people in limbo.

The High Court decision in November 2010 says that asylum seekers who arrive by boat and are placed in off shore detention are to be treated in exactly the same manner as any on shore asylum applicant.

As they are as likely to receive asylum whether on or off shore, exactly how will a Pacific solution deter them?

It will not deter anybody. It will cost taxpayers an enormous amount of money, ferrying lawyers back and forth, building, maintaining off shore detention facilities and so on

Jennifer,

Your are steadfastly ignoring the definition of "illegal immigrant". Even if a boat person was legally within his rights to come ashore, he does it without authorization, ipso facto he falls within the definition of an illegal immigrant.

A TPV for 5 years should be a sufficient deterrent.

The court ruling essentially overrode the excising of Christmas Island. Nauru being another country would still be able to prevent access to the Australian courts.

As for your question as to how the Pacific solution would deter them, rather than quibble about push and pull factors, the following should be sufficient:

2003 Pacific solution implemented arrivals drop from about 4000 p.a. to about 100 p.a. rapidly.

2008 Pacific solution removed, arrivals increase from 100 p.a. to 5000 p.a. rapidly.

There is no other logical explanation for the massive increase.

Shadow Minister

You are steadfastly ignoring the law that says unauthorised arrival should not be treated as an illegal act in the case of someone seeking asylum.

Ergo, someone requesting asylum is not an illegal immigrant as far as the law is concerned.
And most tellingly, is not treated by the law as an illegal immigrant.

The court ruling said off shore asylum seekers were on a equal footing with on shore. It was nothing to do with the excision of the island which remains excised, as does Ashmore Reef.

I do not agree with your TPV plan, or your Nauru plan, which I doubt could be implemented and sounds quite daft. But I have no further argument with you about any of this -if you believe these measures are reasonable then no doubt you will advocate for them.

It isn't me you have to convince. I didn't make the laws and I can't change them - I merely pointed them out. Don't shoot the messenger

I'll add that it will come as no surprise if when next in government the Coalition does indeed reopen Nauru. We already know that the Coalition has no regard for the law, domestic or international, when asylum seekers are involved.

Apart from the treatment of asylum seekers, what will be most alarming about such a move is the billions of dollars it will cost taxpayers, billions that could be much better spent, billions that are urgently needed for health, schools, infra structure and so on.

A centre in Nauru will be a very long term proposition. Given that almost all asylum seekers detained there were found to be refugees, it would seem a criminal waste of taxpayers' money.

None of this matters in the illogical and irrational world of xenophobia and vote winning.

It's really just another version of bread and circuses - keep the masses attention trained on the threat from outside, give them an external focus for their fear and hate, and they won't notice and complain about the inner disintegration.

This is always the goal of propaganda.

Have you been sucked in Shadow Minister? Or are you one of the propagandists?

Jennifer says: “The point of my article is that Australia advertises itself as a Western democratic signatory to the Convention “

I suspect that being “democratic” is well down the list of attractors.
Right up there on top of the list would be our affluent lifestyle /standard of living.

And I also suspect, most of the ADVERTISING is coming from people smugglers & friends & relations already resident in Australia.
“Come on down”
“The border checks are a pushover”
"The houses are big”
” And it’s easy to get rich”
http://www.bombnail.com/?p=133

After all, some of our new arrivals have shown little regard for liberal democratic values:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3100693.htm?site=melbourne

It's refreshing to see that so many people, regardless of any threat to their own life or to that of their own family members would refuse to do anything illegal to ensure their survival.

It will make my job of pushing to the front so much easier if the time comes.

Jennifer,

It isn't me you have to convince. I didn't make the dictionary definition and I can't change it - I merely pointed them out. Don't shoot the messenger.

The issue is not about the number of refugees or their ethnic make up, as the numbers accepted have nothing to do with the number of boat people.

The issue is whether a responsible adult encourages children to play and die in traffic or use the zebra crossing.

Boat people are dying in their hundreds and Labor's idiotic policy that makes it easier to get accepted on the boats is beckoning them to a watery grave, and costing the country $billions more than under the pacific solution.

People are dying in the boats, stop the boats.

Like I said, bread and circuses.

The issue is about the law. The issue is about whether or not politicians have the moral backbone to either abide by the law, or change it.

The issue is about politicians doing everything they can think of to avoid either abiding by the law, or changing it. It's about spin, propaganda, the collusion of the mainstream press, and the construction of a reality that serves political ambitions but has very little to do with anything else.

If you believe its about anything else, if you believe it's REALLY about a few boats, you're dreamin' The asylum seekers are pawns in the political game, and so are we. Time we called the politicians on it. I for one won't stop doing my bit to call them.

/// Something I cant let pass without commenting on ///

There are a couple of excellent posts by franklin on this thread:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11466#195454
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11466#195456

He succinctly cuts through the fog of half truths spruiked by
advocates --I recommend them for a second of third reading.

I for one will be citing/referencing them on future threads, and I look forward to reading many more posts from the writer who goes by the name of franklin.

"Illegal" is used

In a pejorative way

To conceal racism

"Racism” is oft used

In a pejorative way

by those most pompous

And

Haiku when oft used

In bastardised ways

Outs muse as show pony

It’s really quite amazing how so many posters have completely ignored the thrust of my article and instead seized the opportunity to launch their pet attacks on refugees and advocates.

This proves what I’m saying in the piece. Thank you for that validation.

The propaganda has been so effective that many people cannot even see the emotional manipulation of voters for political gain, and that is the case whether you are for or against boat arrivals.

It is staring you in the face – if you want to stop asylum seekers you change the law and you withdraw from the Convention. That will be the end of it.

It is that simple.

It is a no-brainer.

If politicians aren’t willing to do that, why don’t they simply observe the law, and the Convention?

A law we made, a Convention we voluntarily signed?

Now ask yourselves, why will no government do EITHER of these things?

Instead they spend billions and billions of taxpayer dollars trying to find a way around the law, and around the Convention.

A law we can un-make, a Convention we can un-sign?

Doesn’t this situation strike anybody as a trifle insane?

briar rose, as you say most people that post on most forums are only interested in getting their point across.
Most are so blinkered that it is amazing how they find their way across a street.
I see that xenophobia is alive and well here. It shows that there is a hangover from the “white Australia policy”.
Indeed I am guilty of it myself and have an irrational dislike of the Middle Eastern races.
I do not want Australia to become like the UK where there are nogo areas for people of obvious white descent. Yes it is time that the law was changed.

Jennifer,

I agree with you on one thing: Australia should get out the refugee convention.

But, I’m not naïve enough to believe that if we did, it would solve the illegal entry issue.

The big attractor for/to us is our standard of living: the many (lifestyle)advantages that accrue from residency.

The refugee convention is only a pretext, a proxy used to attain those benefits.

If you took the convention away the traffic would simply re-direct itself into student entry, spouse entry, special business entry routes or some other guise.

Part of the problem stems from the motives of those wo arrive by boats or in other ways contrary to normal immigration and other laws. Lets just call them 'unauthorised arrivals'.

The problem is that even those who claim asylum are not seeking asylum, that is, a place of safety and security until it is safe to go back to their countries of origin. They are not seeking 'refuge' as refu=gees normally would.

They are seeking permanant settlement contrary to the immigration laws of this country. They are seeking to circumvent normal procedures under the guise of claiming refuge, in other words they are economic migrants using the convention for results that it was never intended to achive. Is it any wonder that the faces of so many people are turned against them? The UNHCR has itself stated that there are many here who are not genuine refugees and who should be sent back. Of course few are sent back.

If you really want to accept anyone who arrives, as Briar Rose seems to advocate, just be prepared for Australia to turn into the third world slum that so many have come to escape from.

There is no need to withdraw from the convention. The pacific solution complied to the letter (maybe not the spirit) of the convention.

Stop the pro people smugglers from creating a market for human misery.

The other alternative is to give Christmas Island to Indonesia, after all, it is much closer to Indonesia than Australia, or grant it actual independence, or perhaps make it a UN protectorate under the control of the UNHCR, under a 25 or 50 year peppercorn lease, to that organisation. Don't just excise Christmas Island from the Australian immigration zone, excise it completely from Australia.

It could be become a one stop shop for asylum claim processing. Those who really need asylum and could get there by boat could have their claims assessed and receive what they want, asylum from war and conflict, as they don't need to come to Australia for that. Those who by-passed Christmas Island are clearly not refugees, but economic migrants. Others could actually be flown there from other places and be assessed there.

This should satisfy all those people who claim that there is no queue for asylum seekers to jump. The queue for Australia could be on Christmas Island.

*There is no need to withdraw from the convention. The pacific solution complied to the letter (maybe not the spirit) of the convention.*

Clearly there is SM, for we would not have the present fiasco,
whilst Labor are batting, if Howard had had the testicles at
the time.

The way I understand it, we can withdraw from the Convention,
then rejoin, but under different terms. That would close many
of the loopholes that are causing all the problems.

*Stop the pro people smugglers from creating a market for human misery*?

There aren't any "people smugglers" here.
Nobody attempts to "smuggle" people into Australia using boats.
This isn't Europe.
People are trafficked to Australia on boats. Their arrival is announced, they request asylum and they are escorted to Christmas Island. There's no smuggling involved.

*Pro people smugglers*? What transparent tosh.

The global trafficking of people is second only to the global trafficking of illegal drugs.

It's a big international business run by big international cartels.
The crews of the SIEVS have no control over it, they're just earning a quid. They're right at the bottom of the food chain, like drug mules.

Why don't you try the Nancy Reagan solution and *Just say no.* That went well.

*Stop the boats* is just as likely to succeed.

Or *Stop the pro people smugglers...*
Or *Stop* anything really, what a plaintive ineffectual 1970's bleat that is.

Oh people traffickers? ? Hello? We just said no.
Oh damn. Why won't they listen? (Spits dummy).

What a wonderful little world you live in Shadow Minister if you think a bit of sloganeering is going to stop the global trade in human traffic.

Better bastardised

Haiku than concealing hate

With semantic games

"Trafficked" into Australia, not smuggled? The terms are used interchangeably in the discussion of importation of drugs. I could say the same about the 'trafficking' involved in the sex trade, in that people are moved illegally from place to place - smuggled - for an illegal purpose either at their place of arrival or departure.

To say that these people are trafficked rather than smuggled is somewhat disingenuous. Sure, they are 'trafficked' as you say, in that their imminent arrival on Australian land territory is announced, however they are smuggled past the Australian ocean borders to get to where their arrival is announced.

Additionally, smuggling involves both a point of departure and arrival. As the Indonesian government is responsible for these people until they have left Indonesian territory, and I would say it is a fair assumption that the smugglers don't ask permission of the Indonesian authorities to depart with these people, they are, in effect, smuggled OUT of Indonesia.

If these people are not being brought onto Australian territory in what Briar Rose considers an illegal method, why are they not simply paying their money to an airline to fly them in? It would be safer, more expedient and of course they could ask for asylum as soon as they land. But we all know that no airline would fly them in, as they would simply have to fly them out.

“Hatred” cheek indeed!
Better baseborn haiku
Than stillborn psych--regress

If those boat people were white farmers fleeing Mugabe's Zimbabwe for their lives, would they be really treated the same way?

Seriously.

Jennifer,

Your attempt at mocking the idea that the human trafficking can be stopped, fails at the first hurdle. It was stopped. It is completely undeniable that the pacific solution worked.

Human traffickers do not transport people across for free, the fee of about $15000 per person is a substantial sum that can feed an Indonesian family for years, and the "refugees" who somehow have that large amount stashed on them are less likely to hand it over if the likely result is at best a TPV and a chunk of time in detention.

Even the Labor government has conceded that boats are a business and they need to work on reducing the attraction of the boat journey.

Rache ,
If,as is often said: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”.
Then, the holier-than-thou charge that your opponents must be racist is the last refuge of the intellectually challenged.

When you can no longer counter their arguments –as is very apparent on this thread–you simply charge them with racism.

Rache,before I answer your quip, a key point: It is very doubtful that current round of boaties are “fleeing …for their lives”, rather, they are running towards a more affluent lifestyle –so it’s not proper parallel.

If you are fleeing for your life you don’t return to the source of your fear as soon as you drop off your bags –have a look at this: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/21/15098766.html.

“ 70% of successful Tamil refugee claimants [returned] to Sri Lanka for vacations, business or to sponsor family members”

Seriously, now, Rache!

But having made that clear, if we were faced with a influx of whites –and if they employed the same degree of subterfuge as the current influx-- I am confident they would also be greeted with the same reception.

How do I know that?
Actually , with a little help from you side of the house. As repeatedly pointed out, the majority of visa over stayers are young white backpackers, and they are --despite their whiteness--eventually all sent packing.

So there you have it Rache –in all seriousness!

Shadow Minister,

your ludicrously simplistic and reductionist assertions about the success of the so called Pacific Solution have been analysed in many places, but try this one for a start. http://www.islandsbusiness.com

Then you could go on with your own research, if you had a real interest in the complexities of the situation rather than just bleating adolescent slogans.

Of course the boats are a business, but if you think those SIEV crews are the ones who get the big money, you're dreamin' again.

I note your parochial tunnel vision - apparently the only human trafficking that concerns you is the almost infinitesimal trafficking (comparatively speaking) between Indonesia and Australia.

The only sure way to stop asylum seekers is to change the domestic law, and withdraw from the Convention. Then we will cease to be a country that offers asylum, and nobody will bother making dangerous journeys to get to us.

What is your objection to doing this, I wonder? Why will no politicians suggest this, I wonder?

You all say you want to stop people dying in boats. Put your money where your mouth is, if that's what your goal is.

Interesting that none of you will, isn't it? Still trying to find ways around the laws, rather than changing them.

So what really is your agenda, given you won't take the obvious solution to your complaints?

Jennifer,

Firstly check your links before posting them.

Secondly, here are the stats on boat arrivals:

Fin Year..Arrivals by boat
1999–00.. 4,175
2000–01.. 4,137
2001–02.. 3,039 - Pacific solution introduced.
2002–03.. -
2003–04.. 82
2004–05.. -
2005–06.. 61
2006–07.. 133
2007–08.. 25
2008–09.. 1,033 - Pacific solution removed.
2009–10.. 5,609
2010-11.. 3,392 ytd

As a simplistic and reductionist engineer I am having serious trouble trying to find other change factors in 2003 or 2008 that can account for the dramatic changes in numbers. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it probably is a duck.

I have done my own research, and I can find no other explanation. If you could brush aside your fog of self delusion long enough to look at all the facts, you might find that while there are other push and pull factors, there is nothing else that can account for changes of such magnitude.

While human trafficking is a huge problem, only the trafficking between Indonesia and Australia is relevant to this thread.

As from withdrawing from the convention, why bother when a solution exists that complies with the convention.

There's a global ebb and flow of asylum seekers over decades. it's never consistent anywhere in the world. Why would you expect it to be consistent here?

Why do you want us stay in the Convention when it only encourages people to get on boats and risk their lives?

Why do you want us to have the domestic laws that only encourage people to get on boats and risk their lives?

I thought your issue was concern abut people risking their lives in boats, not Australia staying within the parameters of the Convention and keeping corresponding domestic laws.

They won't risk their lives if we aren't a country that offers asylum.

Why do you want to keep extending the invitation that will cause them to die in boats?

Wouldn't no invitation at all be a much more humane solution?

Why do you want them to be able to risk a journey to Nauru?

Bit cruel of you isn't it, given you also believe they are likely to die trying?

This sheila is lacking a brain. Why do you lot continue trying to get anything into it when there is nothing there?

David

Jennifer,

With statements such as

"Will he use the navy, and will they fire on vessels that disregard instructions, risking death and injury to asylum seekers and their children? In international waters?"I see a deliberate ignorance whose intention is to ridicule, but unfortunately is so ridiculous that it beggars belief.

Similarly "There's a global ebb and flow of asylum seekers over decades. it's never consistent anywhere in the world. Why would you expect it to be consistent here?" is such an understatement that either you are again being deliberately ridiculous or delusional.

A 98% reduction when the pacific solution is implemented followed by a 5000% increase when it is removed can hardly be covered by ebb and flow.

As for simply withdrawing from the convention, that is also pathetic, and deliberately ridiculous, and much easier than it sounds.

Libs love 'boat people'

Without them they would attract

Precious few votes

Guess you don't do irony, Shadow Minister.

Still you refuse to explain why you want to retain laws that invite asylum seekers to risk their lives on boats.

It's not a complicated question.

Withdrawing ourselves as a country of asylum would stop boat arrivals risking their lives -

You say over and over again that you want to put an end to asylum seekers risking death.

They'll still be risking death if you send them to Nauru. That won't reduce the risks at all.

So what is your problem with saving asylum seekers lives by not inviting them to make the dangerous trip in the first place?

If we invite them, we're responsible for their deaths, aren't we? According to your reasoning.

We can withdraw from the Convention anytime we choose. It's voluntary. Might be embarrassing but you tough types could deal with that. Howard made it clear that the Coalition thinks the UN is irrelevant anyway. Assisted by Downer, Ruddock, Reith, Abbott et al.

Jennifer, I suspect your argument for so-called refugees has as much to do with your leanings as with Australian law.

Thanks for the update on the Liberals intentions - a mind reader, no less.

But, you ignored the point that people fleeing their country for whatever reason are supposed to seek sanctuary in the first country they arrive in - not get planes, destroy visas and employ people smugglers to get to a country thousands of miles away.

Was that point to near the truth to suit your propaganda?

Your arguments are pretty silly, really.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-01/01rp05.htm

Sounds to me like the Federal Parliament, many nations and even
the UNHCR know full well that the UN Convention is out of date.

I think its a bit of a cheek of the UNHCR to suggest that even
though their Convention is full of loopholes, rather then change
it, we should take more economic migrants to solve it.

Perhaps its time that the UNHCR got their arse into gear and
updated their Convention.

Ibbit -

The only reason for sending asylum seekers to Nauru is to make it as difficult as possible for them to be assessed for refugee status, in the belief that this will discourage them from coming in the first place.

We are a country that invites asylum seekers. In reality, we want to make it as difficult as possible for them if they come by sea, even though our laws say this is a legal method of arrival, and even though our laws say they are entitled to the same refugee assessment processes as any other arrival.

Even though we do not intend to observe our own laws, we still want to keep those laws. Even though we do not intend to observe the UNHC Convention, which requires us to process asylum seekers as humanely and speedily as possible, we still want to remain signatories.

Why? Because we will look very, very, very bad in the world if we change either or both of those things.

Then we have the do-gooders like Shadow Minister, who want to save asylum seekers from dying on boats. These do gooders will not agree to change the laws that cause asylum seekers to die on boats in the first place. That would make us look very very very bad.

Instead, they will allow asylum seekers to continue to die on boats, send the survivors to Nauru where they will be indefinitely incarcerated, maybe eventually given TPVs, and after many years of this abuse, perpetrated at unimaginable cost to the Australian taxpayer, they will be found to be genuine refugees and re settled in Australia.

This is OK with the do gooders because they figure all that suffering is bound to discourage the boat arrivals sooner or later, and the longer you make a refugee wait for asylum the better.

These do gooders are not entirely opposed to people dying on boats. They don't mind a bit of dying if it helps them achieve their goal of stopping the boats.

Somebody tell me I'm wrong. I'm all ears.

Jennifer,

/// Why? Because we will look very, very, very bad in the world if we change either or both of those things. ///

Not at all!

As you are so fond of pointing out, most of our near neighbours are NOT signatories –so why would it matter to them.

In fact, we must look pretty darn silly with some of the namby-pamby antics we get up to, to appease the “asylum seekers. Like when the “asylum seekers” hijacked our rescue ship the Oceanic Viking and gave us an ultimatum that they would not disembark till we guaranteed them a five star destination. And we were forced to provide B&B while our Prime Minster of the day shuffled around the globe begging favours like some minor feudal supplicant .

Our Asian neighbours (with the exception of Indonesia who was not happy at all to be roped into providing port facilities for the ship) must have been rolling in the aisles with laughter . Mind you, they were too polite to display it openly, but I’ll bet the story made for a few merry midnight karaoke sessions .

And as for Europe,whose member states are mostly all signatories-- and wish to god they weren’t!
At the moment they are too busy playing pass the parcel with their own illegal’s to worry about what we do :
“Greece they’re yours, as yours was their nation of entry”
“No France, we are a poor country , you have to take them from us”
I reckon the European nations are just waiting for an excuse to make a dash for the exits themselves.

Jennifer,

The single defining weakness of your argument is that the pacific solution not only complied to the convention, but reduced the boats to a trickle.

The bleeding heart refugee advocates try and delude them selves that the massive change in boat numbers that increased (by several orders of magnitude) had nothing to do with the relaxation of the immigration policy. For to do so would be to accept responsibility for the bodies floating in the water.

No one yet can provide an alternative answer for the massive increase in boat arrivals other than the new policy. And while "ebb and flow" might count for a 10% or 20% change, only the policy change explains a 5000% change.

Under the pacific solution, people did not die in the boats, simply because they did not come.

No Shadow Minister, you’re wrong.

The “single defining weakness of my argument” is that it is based on my visceral and moral objection to causing suffering and death to asylum seekers who are doing nothing more than accepting the invitation we have extended to seek refuge here.

My argument doesn’t have, in your terms, just one “single defining weakness.” It has many:

It’s based in observing the spirit, as well as the black letter (as you recommend) of domestic law and the UNHCR Convention. Another “weakness.”

It is based on my abhorrence for the deceitful duplicity that leads my country to spend unacceptable amounts of money finding its way around laws it has voluntarily implemented, rather than having the courage and the honesty to admit these laws apparently no longer work for the country, and start addressing them. Another “weakness.”

It’s based on my profound disgust at my country’s willingness to use the death of asylum seekers, and the suffering of survivors incarcerated indefinitely in detention centres, as an example to other asylum seekers not to come here. Definite “weakness.”

It is based in my belief that people of the world share a common humanity, and asylum seekers who arrive by boat (at our invitation) are as entitled to humane treatment as is any body else. And we all know how “weak” it’s considered to hold that belief.

It’s based on my belief that to cause suffering in one person in order to teach another person a lesson is a very dubious moral position, and is abhorrent to me. How “weak” is that?

In my world, the governing maxim is “ First, do no harm.”

I probably hardly ever achieve that goal, but it is my goal.

I understand that you consider that position, and all my other positions, to be “weakness.”

Because of suffering in my own life, I’m not able to advocate inflicting it on anyone else. This reluctance is often interpreted as a weakness.

I have to live by my own values. If they’re considered “weak” by some, I can’t say that either surprises or upsets me.

Jennifer,

Policies based on an emotional response (as you clearly have) to an issue often fall prey to the law of unintended consequences. (pink batts is a prime example)

Weakening the refugee policy has led to far more suffering and death for the asylum seekers than ever existed under the pacific solution. More boat people have drowned in the last 2 months than from 2003 to 2008. More people are in detention with stays now extended due the incapacity of the immigration dept to deal with them.

When you see the pictures of the bodies of women and children washed up on Christmas Island, can you really claim to have "done no harm"?

If there would be only 5000 to 10000 boat people a year, I would be the first to send safe boats to fetch them and give them permanent residence immediately. But we all know that this is fantasy.

Shadow Minister
1. I do not accept your foundational premise that a Pacific solution will either stop the boats, or save lives. This is based on my own considerable research (as well as emotion). While this research is clearly not the same as yours, I have yet to be convinced that yours is in any way superior to mine.
2. Given that I don’t accept your premise and you don’t accept mine, there really isn’t anything more we can say to each other on this matter, owing to lack of common ground.
3. I was not aware that I was making any policies. This doesn’t seem to me to be the kind of forum in which one makes policies. It is for the expression of opinions, (even ones with a bit of emotion). My article was an opinion piece. My posts are opinions. I doubt that anyone with any sense bases policy only on opinion.
4. I’m at a loss as to see how my personal philosophy of do no harm is responsible for the Christmas Island deaths. I thought it was a storm.
5. According to your own statistics, there have never been more than 5, 609 boat arrivals in one year. Why haven’t you already sent out boats to bring them safely in, given them permanent residence and saved their lives?
6. I know the answer. It’s better to use them as an example to deter others. If you save their lives and let them live here, everybody on the planet will swarm onto boats and head for Christmas Island. If you let them suffer and die that will really show we mean business.

Oooo-eeer! That last bit was emotional.

BTW, if you have that kind of power, am I talking to the Prime Minister?

BTW 2, our exchange has tempted me to ditch my personal philosophy for a while.

I’m told Desmond Tutu refuses to engage in arguments with those entrenched in opposing points of view. This is a wise stance, I think, as too much energy is wasted in what can only be a pi**ing contest.

@ Shintaro

Bleedin hearts love boats

Their Grimm tales inspire

Chardonnay sermons

.....

Shintaro sorry

Shogun say (do) hara

-kiri not haiku

Why hara-kiri?

It is not my honour that

Is in peril here

Doing the right thing

By the unfortunate does

Not mean one's heart bleeds

I think you will find Jennifer, that global sentiment is changing.

The real villain seems to be the UNHCR, who know that their old
Convention is flawed and full of holes, but refuse to update it.

I note that Sweden and Norway have sent people back to Iraq, despite
all the finger waving. Europe has slowly but surely had a gutfull
and increasingly cant' afford this little joke anymore, as one
country after another, goes into a debt spiral.

I gather that around 5 billion a year is spent processing asylum
seekers, a large % of them economic migrants taking their chance.
So huge amounts of money are simply wasted.

At some point, despite all the finger waving, some country will
break out and name its terms. I wish it was Australia.

We agree to take 15'000 asylum seekers a year, from UN refugee
camps. We also agree to take asylum seekers which are citizens of
ajoining countries and not country shoppers.

Any who turn up with no papers, can be given UN papers and transferred
to a UN refugee camp. With some of the enormous savings created by
the new policy, Australia can increase its contribution to funding
UN refugee camps, rather then waste the money as we do now.

The UNHCR clearly have their heads in the sand over this one, but
eventually, reality will prevail. Perhaps you should talk to them
about making some changes.

Jennifer,

My views are based on the fact that human trafficking by boat is killing people. The evidence is certainly there in the estimated 150 people dead in the last few months. The obvious conclusion is that reducing the number of boats reduces the risk of related deaths.

Secondly, as I have posted previously the Pacific solution directly correlates to a 1/50 drop in boat traffic, and subsequent 50x increase. This is not conjecture, but documented fact. Given the high degree of correlation, statistically, (my maths background) gives a greater than 99% confidence that even if the pacific solution is not the only factor, it is the single most important factor in change of numbers.

Saying that you don't accept the premise without offering a viable alternative is like saying you don't accept the premise that the earth is not the centre of the universe.

If my views appear entrenched, it is simply because when it comes to persuasion, facts and figures weigh more heavily than personal values and feelings, however commendable.

The real irony of the situation is that the humanitarian urges that led to the relaxation of the immigration policy and subsequent surge in boat arrivals, is the reason why the boat was off Christmas island in the first place, and their deaths, just a simple unintended consequence.

The intention of the pacific solution is not to have the deaths in the first place, so your proposal to use them as an example is paradoxical.

Jennifer, I get it about the laws in Australia - how could I not after reading this discussion?
What you skate over, or do not answer is the requirement that people fleeing their country of origin for whatever reason, must stay in the first country they reach, not take airplanes to where they can hire a boat to reach Australia many thousand miles from their homeland.
I also don't understand your lack of compassion for genuine refugees caught in the hopeless detention system, but instead advocate for leaky boat types?
You know - say it over and over, that Australia will not withdraw from the UN treaty, nor will we change our laws because that would make us look very, very bad.
You would also know very well that voters are not kept informed enough, as opposed to politics, about the state of any affair in Australia to make really informed decisions when voting which might actually give politicians pause for thought. Even if we were, our voice is comprehensively ignored by politicians once they reach their goal of government.
So, if you can't change it - the laws or system, why not put forward some practical policy ideas which might be looked at and indeed, might help genuine refugess, like expanding our humanitarian intake instead of railing at Shadow Minister - whom I agree with more than I do you?
Finally, whilst I have little or no faith in politicians of any shade, I do think your comment about people who disagree with you not minding a little dying is callous in the extreme.
People like myself hate death and dying whether it be in floods, by fire or of illegals who have no business trying to force themselves on us in leaky boats.

Actually, the reason why the boat was off Christmas Island in the first place is because the passengers were seeking asylum in a country that announces to the world that it offers exactly that.

I have offered a viable alternative. Here it is again:

If we aren't a country of asylum, asylum seekers won't try to come here. That will stop the drownings, in our waters at least.

I have yet to hear from you why you don't consider that to be a viable alternative.

As I understand your argument, it is that incarcerating a smaller number of people indefinitely now, will save incarcerating a larger number of people indefinitely in the future.

Your only method of addressing the issue of boat arrivals is to treat those who survive the journey as harshly as possible, because you believe statistically that will prevent others.

As we do with criminals.

Except the asylum seekers aren't criminals. We invited them to visit and to stay.

Your statistical solution fails the moral and ethical tests, as well as not having been conducted over at least decade, as recommended by authors of studies of global refugee movements.

The immorality of deliberately inflicting suffering on one group of people with the goal of teaching another group of people a lesson, is unacceptable.

1. The first immorality is extending the false invitation.
2. The second immorality is punishing those who accept the false invitation.
3. The third immorality is using the suffering you alone have caused in the first two immoralities, as a tool of instruction to others not to accept the false invitation.

I can only repeat my earlier post: we have no common ground, and this is a waste of time for both of us. You clearly have no intention of addressing the alternative I've offered many times.

The fact that you won't address this alternative, yet continue to accuse me of not offering it, makes me doubt your good faith, and question your intentions in persisting with this exchange.

Ibbit, I don't accept your disparaging description of boat arrivals as "leaky boat types."

I have met many such arrivals. They are human beings like you and me.

Have you ever met a boat arrival?

Neither do I accept your accusation that because I'm concerned at the moment with this debate about boat arrivals, I have no compassion for any other refugees. That's an insulting and erroneous leap.

Asylum seekers can move through as many countries as they like - it is only when they request asylum in one of those countries that they cannot then request asylum in any other country.

There are people in the world who do not mind a little or a lot of dying if it helps them achieve their purpose. I never implied you were one of them, Ibbit.

Governments are secretive, I agree with you. But on this particular issue anybody can become informed. Google will find you everything you want to know, for and against, so you can make an informed decision.

We should have the courage to look very very bad, instead of continuing to invite people then treating them cruelly when they accept the invitation.

Why should they suffer because we don't have the courage to look very very bad?

What does that say about us and our country? That we're cowards who'd rather damage others than lose face?

That we'll keep damaging others so we don't have to lose face?

"If we aren't a country of asylum, asylum seekers won't try to come here"

Funny, South Africa with its porous borders and shocking treatment of refugees (and non signatory to the UNHCR) has in the order of 10 million illegal immigrants with no access to welfare, schooling or even the legal right to work, which hugely contributes to its poverty and crime.

As for withdrawal from the UNHCR, the question is either one of extreme naivety or a red herring. The UNHCR for Australia is almost moot with respect to the boat people, as common law prohibits the repatriation of persons to where they might suffer harm. Once the refugees are on Australian soil, their prospects for remaining would not differ significantly.

As for my statistical analysis, the tests were done over 10 years and 20 years, (not just the years I posted for information) and the correlation results barely changes. All other significant changes could be linked to world events. However, none had the same dramatic effect on numbers, and there are no major world events that occurred in 2003 and 2008 that could provide an alternative.

Statistics and Mathematics do not inherently ethical or moral. If used correctly they produce the answers you need to know, not necessarily the ones you want to know.

Now I have answered your question, are you capable of providing any other explanation of why the boat arrivals decreased dramatically between 2003 and 2008? If you can't the premise for your entire argument collapses.

Ummm - I don't think my argument has to be defined by your criteria, Shadow Minister. Don't try to bully me into agreeing to your parameters.

I'm not presenting an argument based entirely on statistics. You are.

Your point about South Africa actually supports my position - even though the two situations are vastly different. No matter how awful conditions are for asylum seekers in SA, and they are, that doesn't stop them fleeing even worse conditions in an effort to have a better life.

If we are to learn from that experience we should conclude that treating boat arrivals badly here will not necessarily deter them from seeking a better life in Australia.

You seem to be saying that the only valid grounds on which to make decisions are statistical.

As I've said several times now, I do not accept that premise. We are complex beings. Statistics alone will not fully address our issues in any area. They are but one part, they are but one consideration. They shouldn't be excluded - but neither should they be the only factor in decision making.

And there are a lot of examples in government policy where they certainly are not a consideration.

Common law can be changed. It already has been by Howard when he excised the islands. Dead easy. Any government with an accommodating Senate can change any law.

I'm arguing that given our dishonest attitude to the boat arrivals, domestic law should be changed.

That would make their position once they arrived on Australian soil completely different.

We'd refuse to offer asylum because domestic law says we don't have to anymore. That means we'd pass asylum seekers safely on to countries that do offer asylum.

It doesn't mean we send them back into the danger they've fled. Why would we do that?

We already do our best to re-distribute many of those we've agreed are refugees - we ask New Zealand, Canada etc to re settle them, rather than offer resettlement here. What would be the difference?

My argument is not a purely statistical one, but is supported by the statistics. Yours, however, is not.

Where the theory contradicts the facts, it is generally accepted that the theory is wrong. Any academic would know this.

The example of South Africa shows that as long as the conditions in Australia are better than 90% of the world, there will be significant desire for people to relocate. The main difference between South Africa and Australia, is that the SA border is porous and easy to cross, resulting in thousands crossing every day.

If the border to Australia was as easy to cross, the flood might well be of similar magnitude. The flow is inversely proportional to the difficulty of getting residence, I doubt whether Australia is capable of taking on the entire world's problems.

The excision of the islands is a prime example of where parliamentary law was struck down when it conflicted with common law. You cannot change common law without rewriting the constitution.

Shadow Minister,

My article is an opinion piece about the use of propaganda by politicians and colluding media that works to characterize asylum seekers as illegal and criminal. It’s about changing domestic law, and withdrawing from the Convention. It is about sloganeering like “stop the boats.” I challenged Abbott to rationally explain how that would be achieved, and where. It is about a tame media that do not ask hard questions. I point out that Australia has added no riders to our laws that exclude methods of arrival, or require asylum seekers to queue.

Yet you seem to think I should accept statistical evidence as some kind of answer to the issues I raised. Where is the relevance?

I made no claims about the numbers of boat arrivals. I interrogated the narratives constructed around those arrivals, and the motives of those who construct them. My article is a philosophical piece, based in notions of ethics and morality as espoused by Levinas, Derrida, Foucault, Kant, Douzinas, Nussbaum, et al.

I’ve fully engaged with all your posts, as a responsive OLO author, and have now twice suggested that we agree to differ.

Here’s an idea. As your field is statistics and law (?), write an article for OLO complete with all the evidence for your conclusions about the number of boat arrivals, changing the laws etc. Add your name, experience and qualifications, as have I, so I know if you are informed enough in your area of expertise to know what you are talking about, and whether or not I need to be listening to you.

In your posts you have cited no sources other than yourself, and you are anonymous.

The theory does not contradict the facts just because an unknown poster says it does. Every undergraduate knows that.

I'm not willing to continue any longer with an unknown person making important and unsubstantiated claims.

So unless you are willing to reveal your sources, your area of expertise, your qualifications to draw the conclusions you have drawn, and your name,this conversation is over.
Jennifer.

Jennifer you say:

///“My article is an opinion piece about the use of propaganda by politicians and colluding media that works to characterize asylum seekers as illegal and criminal ///

1)You are a much better exponent of propaganda than many of our politicians:
---This is you talking about the refugees: “their extraordinary strengths” “people with drive, ingenuity and courage”
--- This is you talking about (practically)everyone else: “a rogue state… an act of two-faced political bastardry”
--- And this is you speculating on Tony Abbott’s plans: “Will he fire on the vessels that disregard ,risking death and injury to asylum seekers and their children, in international water …will we kill and maim them”
---And then, the piece de resistance: “indefinite” detention and TPVs create “uncertainty” which “manage(s)to achieve what the Taliban could not”
I would suggest that this is on a par with the best political propaganda.
2) As for the “colluding” “tame” media. Large parts of the media are very sympathetic to the“asylum seeker” cause.Anyone who has visited sites from the ABC or SBS or Crikey or Punch or watched Channel 10’s 7PM project would find it hard to classify them as part of your tame, colluding media—unless they were tamed by you. And even The Forum for all its (usual)even-handedness carries many more articles from advocates like you than your opposition.

/// It’s about changing domestic law, and withdrawing from the Convention. It is about sloganeering like “stop the boats.”///

No it’s not Jennifer, you have no desire to withdraw from the convention or change domestic laws –it’s a rhetorical ploy you use .

When it begins to look like some might take the bait, you promptly jump in with: “[W]e will look very, very, very bad in the world if we change either or both of those things.”
And, when that is shown to be false :
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11466#195641
You ignored it .

/// I challenged Abbott to rationally explain how that would be achieved///

How ridiculous!
As has been pointed out, you need only look at what his party did the last time they were in power.In fact ShadowMinister pointed this out, with stats to back his argument:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11466#195606
But it made no impact on you

You might also look at the sending back of the Papuan boat :
http://www.news.com.au/immigration-starts-deporting-papua-new-guineans-claiming-australian-citizenship-as-another-boatload-arrives/story-e6freoof-1225975957261?from=public_rss
How is it possible for us to stop/turn-around the Papuan boats but not boats from elsewhere?

And as for this outburst:
“I'm not willing to continue any longer with an unknown person making important and unsubstantiated claims.

So unless you are willing to reveal your sources, your area of expertise, your qualifications to draw the conclusions you have drawn, and your name,this conversation is over.”

All I can offer is … ROFL

Lies, damned lies and

Statistics just reinforce

The propaganda

Come on Jennifer, be honest now.

You and other refugee advocates would be screaming blue murder,
if the Govt withdrew from the convention and relisted with the
terms that Australians actually support.

You claim to do no harm, but I don't think that is the true effect
of what you are doing.

For every economic migrant with money, who learns the lines, jumps
through all the loopholes of the Convention and claims asylum,
some poor bugger without 2 cents to their name is being left
behind in a refugee camp.

So you might not intentionally be doing any harm, but those people
are clearly harmed by the fact that the UN Convetion is not being
tightened up, so that only legitimate refugees gain a place.

Jennifer,

I am a manager with a BSc elec eng, a BComm majoring in economics and quantitative analysis topped off with an MBA which does include some law and substantial maths, and whilst I have no problem personally revealing my identity my company does not encourage managers being overtly political. I have however, published technical papers which are not suitable for this forum. If you wish to contact me outside the forum, I will have no problem discussing this on a less anonymous basis.

You challenged Abbott to rationally explain how he would stop the boats. I provided an answer supported by figures and analysis, your responded by choosing simply "not to believe". As to the inference that fewer boats would lead to fewer deaths, that is obviously a logic contradictory to your beliefs that is easier to avoid.

Your article draws more from emotion than fact. Any convention or legal agreement requires one only to adhere to the letter of the law not the "spirit" the refugee advocates would like assigned to it. The act of "political bastardry" as you would phrase it, is legally only a difference of opinion. In the eye of the law it is inconsequential. I would challenge the refugee advocates to try and change the law and to remove the vast areas of ambiguity.

If you choose to stamp your foot and no longer converse, it will be I suspect more due to your inability to counter the logic of:

Fewer boats mean fewer deaths at sea,
The pacific solution dramatically reduced the number of boats,
Ipso Facto, the pacific solution reduced the number of deaths, and is counter intuitively more humane than the drowning and vast prison camps we have under the new policy.

Histrionics wont

Transmute lead to gold

Nor Illegal to legal

The 2001 Australian Electoral Study, which analysed the behaviour of the electorate, surveyed voters at the height of the campaign (the “Tampa election”) and found that, by a politically overwhelming margin of three to one, respondents supported the principle of a hard line position on boat people (secondary movement asylum seekers). This majority support held true across eight of nine occupational categories into which respondents were divided. In only one category, the so-called “social professionals” (typified by Jennifer Wilson), was there majority opposition to government policy, and this category only represented 10 per cent of those surveyed.

“The attitudes of the social professionals are quite unlike those of the rest of the sample”, wrote Dr Katherine Betts in an analysis of the electoral survey. “It shows how unrepresentative the vocal social professionals are of other voters; it is not just that they do not speak for the working class, they do not speak for a majority in any other occupational group.”

Author and journalist Paul Sheehan noted: “Had the government been perceived by the public to be allowing Australian sovereignty to be rendered irrelevant and public policy to be dictated by an alliance of people smugglers, asylum seekers, journalists and legal activists, the political upheaval would have been enormous. Real damage would have been done to the public’s faith in the legal system, the democratic process and the immigration system.”

An Essential Research Poll following the Labor Government's announcement two years ago that it was liberalising mandatory detention policy indicated that Australians still retain a hardline attitude towards secondary movement asylum seekers. Less than a quarter of respondents (24%) said the past policy on asylum seekers had been too tough, while 62% said it had been right or not tough enough. Those in higher income brackets were more likely to believe the policy had been too tough, while those on lower incomes were more inclined to believe it was not tough enough. The poll also reported that a majority of Australians think that the country is now taking too many refugees.

Educated folk

Don't buy the "illegal" lie

Like the hoi polloi

Shadow Minister
Which part of “I do not accept your analysis of the Pacific solution and I’m exercising my scholarly freedom to research other possibilities” do you not understand?

You write: “I provided an answer supported by figures and analysis, you responded by choosing simply "not to believe". As to the inference that fewer boats would lead to fewer deaths, that is obviously a logic contradictory to your beliefs that is easier to avoid.”

Umm, you provided your own figures, your own analysis, you cite no one else’s research, you ignore all other possible contributing factors by saying in your opinion they don’t count, and now you’re critical because I don’t “believe in” your conclusions?

Then you say you’re presenting “facts?”

I think emotion’s safer in this instance, coupled with research.

Yabby, et al: Which part of “It’s my opinion that we need to re assess our commitment to domestic refugee law and international conventions” do you not understand?

There are topics on OLO I can guarantee will bring out the same people with the same opinions they’ve expressed in the same way, I don’t know how many times before.

I know readers like it when authors engage in the forums.
But you really don’t offer us much incentive with your posts.
Hardly anything I wrote about has actually been addressed.
Instead, there’s the usual unsubstantiated rants written by people who haven’t got the bottle to put a name to their “beliefs.”

Did you hear the news yesterday that we’ve come to an arrangement with Afghanistan about returning those who don’t meet UNHCR refugee requirements? This will go some considerable way towards discouraging those who are not in danger from attempting to come to Australia.

More imaginative, more sensible, more decent than the mothballed Pacific solution, “stopping the boats” and “turning them around.”

Just took some intelligence, good will and patient negotiation. Not slogans and not propagandist cruelty, and not blind adherence to black letter law.

Pop over to Mirko Bagaric’s piece on morality today.

Express a bit of anonymous ignorance and prejudice to him. I’m over it.

Jennifer.

*Which part of “It’s my opinion that we need to re assess our commitment to domestic refugee law and international conventions” do you not understand?*

Which could of course mean anything at all, Jennifer.

Who you are, or any other poster for that matter, I really don't
care. It's substance that matters, even if its written by
the shoe shine boy. There are some very clever posters on OLO,
those gems make it worth trawling through the gravel stones.

Fact is this asylum seeker fiasco has been going on for far too
long, costing far too much and still the most deserving miss out.
The UN Convention is way out of date, they even admit it. The
Western world is overrun with economic migrants, a fortune is spent
sorting through them, its lose lose all round.

Fact is that Australia can't solve the world's problems either.
Millions would migrate here, if given half a chance.

So we need to decide on how many a year to take and then select
them in a fair and cost effective way.

But it seems that no politician is game to say what they really
think of the UN Convention, for the moment that he/she tried to
change the terms, refugee advocates would seemingly scream the
house down and all reason would fly out the window.

So the fiasco remains.

Jennifer,

Unfortunately I can see nothing "scholarly" about your article or your posts. You ignore the scientific principle which requires that any theory or proposition explains the data in the real world, you clearly have little grasp of law in Australia, and your calls for abandoning the convention can at best be called sarcastic.

Here are some facts from the department of immigration:

Fin Year..Arrivals by boat
1999–00.. 4,175
2000–01.. 4,137
2001–02.. 3,039 - Pacific solution introduced.
2002–03.. -
2003–04.. 82
2004–05.. -
2005–06.. 61
2006–07.. 133
2007–08.. 25
2008–09.. 1,033 - Pacific solution removed.
2009–10.. 5,609
2010-11.. 3,392 ytd (end October)

The coalition knows that the change in policy influenced the increase in boat arrivals, it has also been acknowledged by the Labor party, and the Newspoll polling indicates that between 80%-90% of the Australian people do so too. The reason that I have largely discounted other factors, is that I cannot find even a combination of factors that can explain the numbers. Not the Iraq war, the Afghan war, Sri Lanka, none have had any significant changes at the relevant times.

So whilst nearly everyone in the country agrees with the blindingly obvious, you in your ivory tower have some information about some other 3rd force that none of us are aware of thst accounts for the massive change in numbers.

You clearly do not have the bottle to substantiate your claims either.

Educated folk?

Right comrade! as in

Re-educated.

…………….

The ones buying are

boaties –big bucks all

and look no returns.

Well well. Don't get emotional, Shadow Minister.

I refer you to my article. You've clearly forgotten what it was about, and have replaced it in your mind with what you imagine it is about.

My suggestion that we withdraw from the Convention and change domestic laws is entirely serious. If you are unable to grasp that, if you can only conceive of it as a sarcasm, then that’s your problem, not mine. There’s nothing I can do to convince you, and I have no interest in trying.

I believe that is what we should do if we are to behave congruously, responsibly, and honestly.

We do not have to change the Constitution in order to do this – my understanding is that refugee law is of no concern to the Constitution, unlike the excision of islands and territories. It can be addressed by parliament.

Law is not my area of expertise. Why should it be? Are you attempting to discredit me because of that? Good luck with that futile project.

I have yet to meet an unscholarly person who wrote an internationally acclaimed doctoral thesis. As you are completely unfamiliar with my work, I'm not attaching a lot of weight to your judgment of my scholarship.

I have never claimed to have superior knowledge in the matter of the Pacific solution. I almost certainly at this point have less than you.

The merits or otherwise of the Pacific solution have absolutely nothing to do with my article.

What I have said over and over in posts, is that I wish to pursue my own research into this, and when I am satisfied that I have as much information as I'm likely to find, I will then make a decision about my opinion of the efficacy of the Pacific solution to stop boat arrivals.

I will not simply accept your perspective, even if you do claim millions of others agree with you.

Millions of people agreed with Hitler. And we all know where that led. There is no correlation between truth, the majority, and morality.
To be continued…

Continued…

On the question of my courage:

I do have the bottle to publish an article that is going to bring a great deal of anger and personal attack down on me. This isn’t the first time I’ve done this and it won’t be the last.

I do have the bottle to treat seriously an enormous number of posts, almost all of them antagonistic and aggressively demanding, and not a few of them hurtful.

I do have the bottle to put my name to my thoughts and opinions.

I do have the bottle to take a stand that is, as you pointed out, against the raging tide, because I want to say what seems to me to be important.

All I have is a voice, as the poet so beautifully observed. To undo the folded lie…

Nobody is forcing you to read my work. You choose to do that. If you find it not to your liking for whatever reason, then read something that doesn’t irritate you so much. Life is short. Why spend it in irritation when you don’t have to?

Now let’s call a halt to this abrasive exchange, Shadow Minister. I have other things to do, and this has taken up a lot of time.
Jennifer.

Shintaro , you’re right

the hoi polloi v

the educated.

Messianic stuff!

So kingly, Christ like?

Nah... second thoughts, more Knut

Jennifer,

I have no problem grasping the point of your article, as you hope that the pariah status that withdrawal will create is a disincentive for the current treatment of refugees.

What you fail to grasp is that signing up to the convention is not legally binding in the first place. It is simply a recognition of principles, and the effect on the courts of the convention is to provide guidance in the application of common law. Withdrawal from the convention if even possible would not change this in any way, as guidance in common law is often taken from US and European courts even though there is no formal recognition.

Existing common law excluding refugee law does not allow extradition or deportation to countries where the defendant might suffer harm. Even excluding refugee law, boat people cannot be deported to where they might suffer harm or persecution.

The second thrust of your article was that "It’s not clear just where Abbott intends to “stop the boats”.

The answer I gave was simple, the re imposition of the pacific solution, which actually does abide by the letter of the convention, and is pretty simply the policy.

You challenged the effectiveness of this proposal, and I provided departmental figures which show a very strong correlation.

While I am not arrogant enough to expect you to accept my views at face value, when I do provide compelling evidence, I do expect more than platitudes "ebb and flow"

If you want to check the figures feel free:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.htm

As for your courage, you have completely failed after multiple requests to provide even one smidgeon to substantiate your belief that the pacific solution will not work. Without substantiation,your belief is akin to religious fervour and not likely to convince anyone.

Shadow Minister,
I'm positive that you will take this post as evidence that I am a totally cowardly bottle-less ignorant un-scholastic hysterical (oh, no that wasn't you, that was somebody else, never mind) woman who is governed by a kind of religious mania about asylum seekers,causes them to drown, and is so stubborn and willful that she will not, she just will not, damn it, despite all the "evidence" you go to so much trouble to provide her with, listen to you and believe what you've told her.

The Pacific solution does not exist. It is a dead Pacific solution. There is little possibility of it existing under this government. Should it exist again sometime in the future, I have no idea whether or not it would work, depending on your definition of what a "working" Pacific solution is. (I suspect our definitions of this may differ).

If I don't reply to your posts over the next few days, it's not because I've ceased to find them scintillating. I'm going to a family celebration - we are a family that has five day weddings and four day birthday parties, so I'll be gone a while.

But really, I don't care about this argument anymore. I'm very happy to "lose" it to you and move on. If that makes me look, whatever,anything, it's worth it, and I sooo don't care.

I am not in the business of convincing people - if something I say causes someone to think a bit, that's fine. That's all I ask. Nobody who writes for the public seriously expects they're going to convince anyone of anything. You put stuff out there, and people do what they like with it. Sometimes somebody says something nice, but hardly ever. Mostly people carry on like you.

I hope you find something interesting to occupy yourself with while I'm gone.

It is good that you are not in the business of convincing anyone, as by simply restating your position and "beliefs" over and over again does not inspire confidence.

I wish you well with your family

Jennifer, you answered my point about people fleeing through as many countries as they wish, only having to stop if they seek refuge. A statement which I must look into on Google as it is different to the perception of myself and many others.
I think my description of "leaky boat types" is no more insulting or erroneous a leap as your speculation about boat people, guns and what Mr. Abbott might do with them in the context of boat people.
The only statement you make that I agree with is that we should have the courage to withdraw from the UN Convention and change our laws which are a pull factor for boat people and people smugglers.
However, rereading your article, I would think that you would fight to the death to stop any such move.
And as for lacking compassion for genuine refugees marooned in terrible camps, how else should I think when you seem desperate to protect leaky boat types, every one of whom displaces someone in very genuine need of refuge, not just seeking a better life.
Whether or not I have met a "refugee" from a boat is irrelevant and maybe a bit of self-aggrandizement on your part. However, it falls short because anyone who can so hysterically suggest the things you did about Mr. Abbott in your article is lacking a great deal of commonsense.

Guys - eat my dust.

Fair enough Jennifer. I didn't think you had a solution to
the fiasco.

We'll just wear out hearts on our sleeves, but offer no real
solution. It happens time and time again on OLO.

I'm not required to find solutions, Yabby. I write opinion pieces not public policy.
That seems to be a point of confusion amongst posters - someone states their thoughts and you think you have the right to demand they solve extremely complex problems in 350 words.

Why do you think we have to give you solutions? We give you opinion. Don't put your childish need to have everything solved for you on me because I wrote an article. Take responsibility for yourself.

Re the eat my dust comment- that was rude.

I am however, disgusted at the rudeness addressed to me. In the last few posts I've been described as ignorant, hysterical, self-aggrandizing (simply because I've met boat arrivals) not inspiring confidence, lacking compassion, lying, cowardly,afflicted with religious mania, avoidance, being unscholarly, being a liar again, being an "armchair academic" and the rest. Anything to try and put me down - why? Can't you just debate me? Is it because I'm a woman? Is it a gender thing?

Is it because I advocate for asylum seekers? I deserve all that because I care about asylum seekers? I "wear my heart on my sleeve" so you'll do your best to give me a good kicking?

I don't know why you think that because someone writes an opinion piece it gives you the license to freely abuse them. Disagree, by all means. Put up alternatives and robust arguments. But the abuse? The character assassination?

You like authors to engage in the forum. Then you abuse them and attack their characters. I've seen that happen every time I read this journal. It's happened to me just about every time I've written anything.

Well, after this experience, this author won't be engaging in the forums again. Why would anyone bother?

*Why do you think we have to give you solutions?*

Because solutions Jennifer, is what it's all about. Anyone
can claim the high moral ground and pontificate. It does not
solve the problem. It does not give them credibility.

Reality dominates.

*Don't put your childish need to have everything solved for you on me because I wrote an article. Take responsibility for yourself*

I did that Jennifer. I wrote what I thought should happen.
I have no objection to people pointing out the flaws in my thinking
and proposing something better, something that works.

But a solution is what its all about, not more fiasco.

* I "wear my heart on my sleeve" so you'll do your best to give me a good kicking?*

No good kicking Jennifer. Simply pointing out that in my opinion
you wear your heart on your sleeve. Reason versus emotion is one
of my pet hobbies in neuroscience.

Come up with a solution that will solve the problems that I have
mentioned, in this real world, and you will earn my respect.

If you can't, well then its just more pontificating, but you have
nothing better to offer, then anyone else.

Fair enough.

What kind of discourse

Is abuse of an author

Who dares to respond?

That's cool, Yabby - apply that to all opinion pieces everywhere and there'll be nothing left for you to read.

And nobody left for you to criticise

Then you can sit in a corner alone and talk to yourself.

Your reality isn't necessarily everybody else's.

Earning your respect isn't up there on my list of ambitions.

It's not about providing you with instant solutions - it's about comprehensive debate about difficult issues conducted with good will and honesty, not abuse and fear. It's about working our way towards solutions the best we can. It's about individuals bringing their own individual perspectives to issues. Its about the richness of diverse opinion.

It's not about you hearing what you want to hear, how you want to hear it.

Nobody forced you to read my work.
You chose to do it, and to engage with me about it.

How silly are you, if you've been spending all this time doing something you didn't really want to do, had no interest in and thought was pontificating rubbish.

Simple really Yabby. If you think it's rubbish and it doesn't give you what you want don't waste your time on it. That's your choice and your responsibility.

Writers aren't going to write only what you want to read.

Thanks for one more piece of gratuitous rudeness.
You OLO people are very accomplished at that.

I won't be writing for OLO again.

Thank you for the interest shown in my work over the last couple of years.

Abuse but wherefrom

Muse needs to read more

And play the fool less

……………………

Only popes expect

discourse without check

Reason trumps self esteem

Jennifer,

We'd be sorry to lose you....one thing you should know about Yabby is that he's like one of those weighted inflatable things that you try and knock down with a response - and he bounces straight back up (every time!).
I've never had the last word in a debate with him...but, of course, I've never been arguing with him over the merits of an article that I've written - which I think changes the dynamics somewhat.

Hope you keep writing for OLO - your articles are always thought provoking and usually elicit a spirited response.

I have seen this published,

BENEFIT - AUS AGED PENSIONER - REFUGEE
weekly allowance - $253.00 - $472.50
Weekly Spouse all - $56.00 - $472.50
weekly hardship all - $0.00 - $145.00
YEARLY BENEFIT - $16,068.00 - $56,680.00

Where do our priorities lie?

Shadow Minister & Yabby

This is the answer from the Minister's office, i trust you will now start to embrace the truth

"The information you cite about assistance to refugees is part of a coordinated campaign of misinformation that appears to have originated in Canada. The figures quoted about payments to refugees bear no resemblance to the payments provided to people in Australia's income support system or to payments available to asylum seekers in Australia. There is no such thing as a weekly allowance, weekly spouse allowance or a weekly hardship allowance anywhere in Australia.



Refugees granted permanent protection visas are permanent residents of Australia. Their access to Centrelink benefits is on the same basis and at the same rates as any other Australian permanent resident.



We’d be grateful if you could pass this information on to the rest of your branch and to others who may have been misled by this campaign of misinformation. It is irresponsible and offensive and is a sad attempt at racial wedge politics that is beneath us as a party and as a Government.



As you know, the Labor Government will continue to stand for a responsive and targeted social security system that is based on equity and sustainability. We will also continue to respect the needs and plight of those who have come to Australia as refugees and migrants, recognising and supporting their incredible contribution to our community.



Thank you for writing.

Yours Sincerely"