A VERY IMPORTANT DEBATE......

and we cannot afford to be fuzzi-minded about the issues.

QUOTE:

"What the Government's Pacific Solution is doing is to prevent, where possible, West Papuans (and others) from gaining uninvited and unwelcome entry to Australia - this not because they are being acted against in their country for what they are, like Hitler persecuting the Jews simply for being Jews, but because they are 'acting outside the law', both Indonesian and Australian."

At first I resented Fieldings opposition, then I reflected. Now I agree in principle, but add a very important proviso as follows:

1/We DO have an obligation to compassionately (but firmly) assess those who arrive here. The obligation in my view is to God, not the UN. The old testament is rich in 'careing for the alien and the fatherless' type themes.

2/ We DO have a responsibility to the Australian people to ENSURE that our generosity is not abused by opportunistic lawyers who milk the public purse (Legal Aid) to keep themselves employed by interminably extending the stay of those assessed as 'not' genuine refugees.

Solution:

a) Firm up the Christmas Island reception centre idea.
b) Ensure that it is OUTside the jurisdiction of our normal migration zone.
c) Ensure the speedy assessment (by contacting those from the area the people originated) and either acceptance or repatriation of all would be assylum seekers.
d) Prohibit FORCEFULLY the use of Australian soil for the public promotion of nationalistic or cultural causes. Including the PLO/HEZBOLLAH and even West Papuan Independance by those granted assylum.

CRIMINAL BACKGROUND
One problem with those coming from anywhere, is that we don't know on the surface if they have broken any criminal laws. If they have, they are immediately disqualified from eligability under the UN convention.

In the absence of a fair trial, its difficult to determine this point.

On balance, it behoves us to be kind, but firm in our kindness.

Lets be consistent in our application of tough new immigration laws and treat all persons the same way. Far more tourists arrive by air and overstay their visas than arrive at Ashmore Reef in a leaky boat. The largest number of visa overstayers are British.

I am writing in response to some issues here. Brock pointed out that "The West Papuans are racially,religiously and culturally different to the Indonesians". This is half of the truth i am afraid. More frequently, independence supporters in Australia either left or not tend to view the conflict in a rather binary model between David and Goliath. This picture then is unfortunately inadequate to depicting the conflict. It is rather a simplification of the case into racial antagonism between West Papuan, whom some Australians perceive as racially different to the rest of the population, and Indonesians. On the extreme level, this depiction is exaggerated by blaming the Indonesian government of committing genocide, as mediocre analysis of Center of Peace and Conflict Studies has released in West Papuan matter.

The flaw in this binary model perspective is obvious. The country itself comprises of more than 300 hundred ethnic groups. The term "Javanisation" in conflict areas such as Aceh and Papua are used disparagingly, to put it precisely, which is an expression of hostility toward the centralised government in Jakarta. In other words, it implies the historical context of the conflicts (New Order regime under Suharto). The other important thing is that the fact of Indonesia as multicultural country is often neglected in the discussion, as in West Papuan case.

I am not objecting West Papuan who fled to Australia and speak out about their grief, even if they used a rethorical human rights term genocide. Its absolutely their rights. Many people might think, in a common sense, that democratisation in Indonesia exemplified by robust civil society and installation of democratic institutions, could contribute to solving human rights abuses in West Papua and others areas. Not only West Papuan who have been fighting against injustice in their region but others including poor Javanese whose land were confiscated, Indonesian Chinese people who were culturally suppressed and were economically robbed, and ex-communist members who were politically curtailed have been hoping that things will change together with democratisation.

Col no matter how many times you write that coming to Australia without a visa is an illegal issue you are still wrong.

The High Court and the parliament have both deemed that the word "unlawful" is only a definition phrase and should be taken out of the drafting of laws regarding refugees or migrants.

All offences for being in Australia without a visa were removed in 1992 and not replaced. Now we have this deluded system where we lock people up without trial or charge, forget to tell them what they can do to claim protection and spend 100's of millions doing it.

As for the lawyers - well the lawyers employed by the government to stop people making legitimate claims or getting a fair hearing have certainly got rich but those who work for the refugees don't get paid at all.

Now it is legal to arrive in Australia without a visa an seek protection.

Got that now? What about you Des you ridiculous illinformed old goat?

Oh Marilyn, I don’t care about your rambling and slightly deranged opinion, someone arrives here with the expressed intention of avoiding the legally coinstituted migration processes, they are attempting to circumvent the law and are thus acting “illegally”

Dress your delusions up with all the semantics you want.

If they were here legally their “detention” would be illegal. The detention is not “illegal” and thus that confirms their illegal – and immoral – status.

The point is, offshore detention of all illegal entrants is the best deterrent in preventing more illegal entrants.

I'm wondering if this joker Des Moore is just dumb and ignorant OR is he actually trying to knowly mislead readers about the nature the West Papuan situation and struggle (which I don't necessarily support just for the record). So which is it, Mr Moore, dumb or a liar?