Bravo, Philippe. I didn't think Howard could bring us any lower, but this abhorrent policy does just that. And shame on the ALP for not standing up more strongly against Australia's treatment of refugees in the past decade. I have never been more ashamed to be part of this society.

Thanks for an eloquent indictment of the worst government this country has ever had.

Emma.

PS: I can highly recommend Philippe's book "Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them".

"Australia's treatment of asylum seekers has long been shockingly inhumane."

Now there's a subjective comment. Once upon a time, anyone making such a claim would be called upon to explain how they came by that opinion. More correctly, they would explain their reasons for holding such an opinion in the next paragraph without being asked. But not any more! People can say whatever they like, and they couldn't care less about the truth, or otherwise, of their statements.

Not only are so-called journalists and writers like this one unable to use their own language with any competence, they also expect to be paid for the priviledge of bandying their own opinions about.

Take the assertion that people are treated as "chattel". Unless he has made a typo and means "cattle", he is referring to people plural as a noun singular.

But little Philippe's real intention, of course, is not to demonstrate journalistic prowess or even handed integrity, but to incense us against the Coalition Government with regard to swapping, with other countries, captured illegals whom we've caught trying to enter the country by the sneaky method.

Well, I too think the whole idea is ridiculous. Why swap some Sri Lankans we don't want for some Cubans from America who don't even remotely belong in our region? Because John Howard has lost the plot. He is a faltering left-wing pansy who should have handed the job over to Peter Costello two years ago.

Nobody has the right to to "cross the world in search of a better life", as our boy reporter thinks, and expect to be allowed into any country they choose. What has a "better life" got to do with genuine asylum-seeking? Nothing.

Illegals are nothing at all like those "millions of Britons who have moved to Australia in recent decades". They were needed and invited. They came legally, fully documented.

And, from the author's own admission, we see that the ALP is quite happy with the current situation and would do much the same thing.

Time to give up, boy.

Pro-asylum shopper advocates are highly dishonest, so it's mildly refreshing to hear one admit it's extremely difficult to determine a real refugee from an economic migrant. That's probably why most of those who apply to the UN for asylum in Indonesia (as opposed to launching a boat towards soft-touch Australia) are rejected.

So why persist with this nonsense that we can let in anyone who comes here claiming to be a refugee and even more absurdly, let them stay permanently!?

There are hundreds of millions of very poor people across the world who could justifiably claim they want to come to Australia for a better life. Either we give them all a visa or we don't. It's morally untenable to argue we should only let in those who have the means to get to Australia.

The refugee convention was a document of its time but in the age of cheap flights, where travelling a vast distance is no longer evidence of desperation, it is completely flawed. We need to tear it up and start again.

Well argued, Philippe and spot on Emma. I too am very disappointed in Tony Burke's failure to condemn the Howard Government's actions as abhorrent and inhumane. This bizarre swap idea is counter-productive, Burke is right, and the whole Howard approach is costing unnecessary billions of dollars, as he is also correct to point out. But where is the Opposition voice to rail against the moral bankruptcy of this government's treatment of asylum seekers and the way it has trashed Australia's once proud reputation as a generous and decent nation? Where is Kevin Rudd's voice on this? I don't think I've heard the word refugee or asylum seeker pass his lips yet. But then again posts like those above remind you that sadly our Opposition these days has to pander to ignorance and racism if it wants to win government. I agree, Emma, I am ashamed to be Australian at the moment. I'm also ashamed at the as-of-right way wealthy countries plunder the world's resources with little or no care for the communites they destroy along the way. We are all implicated in this exploitation whether we want to be or not and we all have a duty to ameliorate its damage on the vulnerable people it displaces. When refugees land in desperation on our doorstep, turning them away or shipping them onto someone else is not an option that civilised countries should even contemplate.

Philippe Legrain is just so totally on the wrong track. Not the slightest attempt to express any sort of balance. Talk about end-of-the-spectrum claptrap!

Principle 1 – any country has the right to control the movement of people inwards across its borders. It is crazy to tolerate anything more than a tiny trickle of people outside of formal immigration policy.

2 – There is certainly a massive desire amongst many millions of people to come to Australia. They would if they could, as they had started to do in great numbers at the time of the Tampa incident in August 2001.

3 – A strong border-protection policy is vital. This has to be done with the best standard of treatment exercised in balance with a strong deterrence factor. Striking that balance is the hard bit. I’m no fan of Howard, but I think he got it pretty close to right.

4 – If the developing influx in August 2001 had ensued, the attitude of the Australian people towards asylum seekers would have quickly hardened, and their subsequent treatment would no doubt have been much harsher, with a far smaller proportion of them being granted residence.

5 – Australia cannot help solve the overpopulation or refugee problems by accepting large numbers of people. We need to do our bit in a totally different manner, predominantly by addressing the causes of the issues at their sources via international aid programs.

6 – At this point in time, Australia desperately needs to gear itself towards a balance between the demand on its varied resource base and the ability for the weakest part of our essential resource base to cater for the demand, in an ongoing manner. Population stabilisation is an essential part of this redirection towards sustainability. We simply cannot afford to facilitate a large influx of people any longer, by either asylum-seeker or formal immigration routes.

This is the shortest article I have seen on OLO. It is certainly in keeping with the terribly poorly thought-out simplistic opinion of Mr Legrain.

Leigh and grn, How much longer do you think we can put up the barriers and keep the 'unwanted" out? Years? Decades? Centuries? What level of resentment will build up as a result? What in particular about the erosion of goodwill in our own region as we send asylum seekers back to struggling island nations like Indonesia and West Papua, who are not Refugee Convention signatories and have no obligation or capacity to help? Economic refugees or refugees fleeing war - the distinction will become more and more meaningless in years to come when millions more are displaced due to climate change. Once again, the poor will suffer because of the excesses of the rich. As a comparitively wealthy country, we have an obligation to assist where we can. We are only talking a few thousand refugees who, as pointed out by Andrew Bartlett in another article today, will be a net financial gain to Australia not a drain. I know population is an issue (No doubt Ludwig's out there ready to pounce!) but we are not talking large numbers. It's about doing our bit as responsible global citizens, not opening the floodgates as we've been brainwashed to believe. And by the way, people who sell all they own for one family member to travel thousands of miles in an overcrowded and unseaworthy boat to an unknown destination are indeed desperate. Another by the way, the word Chattel was used correctly.

The world according to the BBC; now that's an unrebukable source if ever there was one.

Whilst I personally hold no brief for the Howard government, and despite the bizarre nonsense of the current 'swap' idea, it is hard to come up with an immigration policy that is both humane and viable in terms of our own economic survivable. The vociferous 'let them all in - we are all brothers and sisters together' component of the debate has yet to to suggest the appropriate course of action when fifty million of the world's poor and hungry turn up - and fifty million is a small drop in a very large bucket. This country is presently stretched to the limit in providing adequate food and water supplies to the existing population, not to mention the corresponding provision of services. Many Australians are poor, more than a few are inadequately fed, and in my view deserve priority over the alleviation of misery in other countries. There is simply not enough to have everybody in the world live at the standard that most of us enjoy in this country. Population is the problem, and population control is the only long term solution. The choice is between limiting conception, or allowing natural attrition. These are the only two viable options.

It is not necessary to “let them all in”, as some posters imply, to have a more humane policy towards people claiming asylum in Australia.

This can be achieved by treating all arrivals decently, processing their applications quickly, and detaining only those that seem to be a genuine risk to the domestic community – in other words, treating people who arrive without papers by boat about the same as we treat other unauthorised visitors, such as visa over-stayers. Yes, I know there are differences, but they’re not significant enough to justify prolonged detention of people who are already, in many cases, victims of violent oppression.

Not even the defenders of Australia’ harsh treatment of asylum seekers have sought to defend the swap arrangement with the USA, whose sole purpose seems to be to demonstrate a petty meanness towards people whose entitlement to asylum under international treaties cannot be thwarted.

The vicious subtext of Australia’s asylum-seeker policy is that the worse we treat asylum seekers, the less inclined they will be to come here. This is indeed despicable.

here her Ludwig,

Some sense from you.

They should be detained for a period for Disease Testing, cultural education and preparing them to enter a vastly different culture and way of life from what they've known. it is essential.

Sometimes i read the comments on this website and really despair for the social environment we have fostered in this country. Blatant racism, elitism and little concern for fellow human beings. Some of the views and ignorance in this country really make me ashamed.

I just hope that with the all the talk of Australia struggling to provide water to its population we never find ourselves in the position of millions of refugees and destitute people throughout the world. How will people feel if one day we're forced to search for security and adequate living standards in another country and the kind of arguments and reasoning that have been raised in this forum are used against us?

This aarticle offends me because it asserts that the Howard's government policy is determined absolutely by the motive of pandering to the most votes. This is not unthinkable, but it also implies that most of us are xenophobic and also that the government is entirely political. Of course Mr Howard is political, and of course many of us are xenophobic. But there is also a real issue of whether people who are "smart" in gaining access should have preference over those many refugees who are held in camps awaiting the provision of some reallocation. I am socialistic in sentiment, but realistic - I think - in believing that all refugees shoud wait their turn whilst being sequestered in safe UN locations. The Howard Government (who I personally despise) is spot on in its policy. Refugees shoud be housed, temporarilly, in places from where they can be distributed to nations happy to receive them

EMMA DAWSON....

I recommend a book also its called "The Politics of Federalism" by Syed Kechik... might be avail in Australia, but NOT in Malaysia which is the focus of its content.

Syed Kecik is a very honest Malay Muslim journalist who grasped the nettle and described the reality of the politics of the Sabah Election in 1972 where it cost the Malaysian government $30million ringgit to get RID of Tun Mustapha who, in a state with a population of under 1 million had his own 707 private Jet. (The whole federal election for Malaysia at that time cost only $3million Ringgit)

What did Kecik reveal about IMMIGRATION? Aaaaah..that's the question.

His book might be appropriately renamed "'Refugee'Immigration, a good source of VOTES and paramilitary support"

Back door illegals? (yes, I describe them as such if they seek to circumvent the lawful established chanels) -Mustapha would only have one question "Are they from the Southern (muslim) Phillipines, Sulu"? if 'yes' then he welcomed them with open arms.
Why? simple, because they added to his support base and he had ancestral connections to the Sultanate of Sulu.

When a Roman Catholic Chief minister got up after Mustapha's demise, suddenly the 'Refugees' started to flood in from (Catholic) TIMOR... gee, surprise surprise.

The suggestion that the pro refugee campaigns in Australia have no political motivation and goal is to indulge in naivity of apocalyptic proportions.
The goals are:

1/ DAMAGE HOWARD at all costs.
2/ RAISE POLITICAL PROFILE of such groups as the Socialist Alliance.
3/ INCREASE their support base.
4/ ADD to the Labor/Left/Green/Democrat voter base, which in the long term will ensure their power.

Presumably, the 'Coalition' objectives would be to limit the above, and to focus on the legal flow, with an emphasis on 'skills' which they may believe will be more likely to translate into a more favorable voting pattern.

In the off chance that there is a genuine compassion aspect to this whining about 'poor refugees' I would suggest it is admirable, though naive and ignorant of the long term consequences for Australias cultural,social and political cohesian.

GYM FISH.. we are in full agreement re your last post mate.

RHIAN says:

"This (humane policy) can be achieved by treating all arrivals decently, processing their applications quickly, and detaining only those that seem to be a genuine risk to the domestic community –"

Who is going to disagree with that? Not me for sure.

But lets look at the reality:

1/ "Treat arrivals 'decently'"
a) Housed
b) Fed
c) Clothed
d) Protected
e) Educated.
Errr seems pretty decent to me.

The most indecent treatment of 'refugees' comes from they themselves, especially those of majority religious faith from places like Iraq who treat Christians, Mandeans and other non Muslims as 'scum,dirt,sub humans and unclean' not even eating with them. (Refer well documented reports on this)
So, the major weakness of Australian authorities is that they did not KICK out the perpetrators of such inhuman callous behavior at first sight of it.

2/ "Processing Applications Quickly"

yes.. clap clap... as far as I know, most are EXCEPT where:
a)They have discarded their documentation.
b)They have disagreed with the initial assessment and appeal.
c)Departmental stuff ups.. yes they do occur.

Then we have the interminable 'enquiries, commentaries,court goings on, demonstrations' etc.. all of which have the politcal goals of simply 'Damaging Howard' and the other political objectives listed in my last post.

I can think of many other ways to damage Mr Howard, but.. they would require much more work. Its too easy to pay rent-a-crowd to roll up to a detention centre, alert the Media and wave a few 'Resistance' placards in the face of the cameras.

So, my total cynicism over all this 'compassion' remains in tact

I see views expressed of Leigh and Sage similar to mine.

As for the ignorant scrote who wrote this piffling dross, may he fall on his own pen and die of ink poisoning.

Australia has a significant refugee acceptance quota. That Australia chooses to favour / give priority to refugee applicants from refugees camps who can be seen to be “refugees”

Over

a bunch of queue jumping scumbags who are as likely to be simply seeking migration to a more favourable economic environment or fleeing civil prosecution for criminal acts in their real homeland and had sufficient resources to bribe a criminal people smuggler to attempt to sneak them past immigration control..

Is a matter for Australia and not some lefty London journalist parading a cause.

The postscript “Perhaps feeding people to the sharks would be a more effective deterrent.”

Now there is an idea - maybe we could start with a test sample using Philippe Legrain,

Except the sharks would likely spit him back.

Everyone is avoiding the central point in Legrain's article and it's a good one: it is largely impossible to fairly and accurately determine a real refugee from an illegal economic migrant.

It's simply too easy to invent a story if you come from the right geographical area or thereabouts. The whole refugee system is based on the bogus idea that we can winnow out real refugees with an acceptable degree of accuracy. People who work in the field know this.

Logan Olive Oil

I’m sure you are a very nice and well-meaning person, but I’ve got to say that I find the abject misuse of the racist and elitist slurs just terrible. It is all too easy to brand those with whom you disagree as racists, without adding any substance to your criticism. In fact, it is every bit as bad as blatant racist slurs themselves.

Can you please address the points in my last post. I’d love to know if you can find anything racist or elitist amongst those principles and goals.

“I just hope that with the all the talk of Australia struggling to provide water to its population we never find ourselves in the position of millions of refugees and destitute people throughout the world.”

Well with Legrain’s absurd open-border policy, that’s exactly what we would get.

“How will people feel if one day we're forced to search for security…”

How about thinking one big step ahead of that – protecting the security we’ve got.

The most important thing is to protect a half-decent quality of life and to do it sustainably. If we don’t do this in Australia, we won’t be in any sort of position to help any of the world’s needy.

Boaz_david

It’s true that some arrivals have no papers, and a few may even deliberately destroy them, but many do have identification, and its absence is not necessarily proof of guilt or malice. And check out Andrew Bartlett’s article on the refugees on Nauru – “it was over two years before many of them were able to access any meaningful legal assistance to help with their claims”

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5803

The list of “humane” treatments you describe is no more than we guarantee the rapists and murderers in our high-security jails. These are the minimum humane provisions for perpetrators, not victims, as many refugees are. Or would you be happy to spend years in detention so long as you were fed and clothed adequately?

You can be cynical about the motives of demonstrators and do-gooders, but have you examined your own heart on this issue?

grn “Everyone is avoiding the central point in Legrain's article and it's a good one: . . . The whole refugee system is based on the bogus idea that we can winnow out real refugees with an acceptable degree of accuracy. ”

I disagree,

I would observe, confining ones selection to folk who are in UN or administered “refugee camps” and who could “evidence” their refugee history would ensure the recipients of refugee visas were “genuine”. I am sure there are enough qualifying refugees available to take up the quota from this source.

That is what I call a good basis for determining a “real refugee” from the flotsam and queue jumpers of the illegal people smuggling trade, who , by their efforts to break Australian migration laws have demonstrated a reckless and criminal nature which would deem them unsuitable for residency..

Oh Rhian – the ones of Nauru might have come from anywhere, one thing is certain, they did not come from a refugee camp. The refugee camp source is where we can be a little more “sure” of the authenticity of the refugee.

Rhian and Ludwig

No-one here that I can see is calling for a “let them all in” or an "open border policy" so those comments are misleading and quite unfair to those genuinely arguing for better treatment of asylum seekers. What is being suggested is just and fair treatment for all asylum seekers and a prompt processing of their claims.

grn

"The whole refugee system is based on the bogus idea that we can winnow out real refugees with an acceptable degree of accuracy."

So, what are you suggesting? It's all too hard, just send them all back? Regardless that the vast majority of claims are genuine and that sending them home can result in their death (as has been documented by both David Corlett and the Edmund Rice Centre).

Fencepost

.."all refugees shoud wait their turn whilst being sequestered in safe UN locations."

I agree 'waiting their turn' sounds like the fair approach but unfortunately it doesn't happen that way. In reality, most refugees will wait years and years and will never leave these camps. There is no queue - fair and orderly or otherwise. Bribery and political opportunism win the day as much as anything else. Millions and millions of people live huddled together in these camps in the most appallingly squalid and soul-destroying conditions. Watch a re-run of SBS's recent Rohingyas program if you can. I doubt you'd be so quick to suggest they 'wait their turn' if you did.

I am just amazed that people can advocate treating other people as if they dont deserve the exact same things as people in this country expect. The only (most of the time in this forum) criteria for deserving humane treatment usually revolves around where those people come and serving the interests of the people already in Australia.

Well may we argue for better treatment of Australians in various circumstance, but to do it only because they are Australian is wrong. First and foremost we are all humans, surely we have some responsibility to trying to provide the best and fairest world we can. Not simply excluding those "unfortunate" enough to fall outside the borders of Australia.

How about we use the simple principle of treating other people the way we would hope to be treated?

Ludwig, i wasnt directly referring to you when posting but rather a general dismay after reading these forums from time to time (including this one). However, how about we structure our thinking a bit more globally than locally sometimes. You raise one or two interesting points which i agree with, but there is NEVER a need to sacrifice the decent treatment of people.

Col Rouge - the neatly documented, certificated and approved refugees sitting in UN refugee camps were once themselves like the people who arrive on our shores – desperate, attempting to evade authorities who wish them harm, often without proof of identity or official sanction for their travel. A very large proportion were "unauthorised" once. The fact that the Australian government – to its credit – accepts significant numbers of refugees under its humanitarian programs in no way diminishes our legal and moral obligation to those who arrive outside official channels.

Bronwyn – re-read my posts and I think you’ll find I’m not so far from your position on this issue.

Nice article, Philippe Legraine, which reintroduces the notion of a social conscience to an Australian culture that has been sadly been losing it in recent years.

As for this from Col Rouge:

"I see views expressed of Leigh and Sage similar to mine.

As for the ignorant scrote who wrote this piffling dross, may he fall on his own pen and die of ink poisoning...

...The postscript “Perhaps feeding people to the sharks would be a more effective deterrent.”

Now there is an idea - maybe we could start with a test sample using Philippe Legrain,

Except the sharks would likely spit him back."

If it was at all possible, I would like to swap Australian "scrotes" like Col Rouge for those desperate but deserving people who increasingly frequently make the unenviable decision to abandon their homelands to try and make a new life here.

Australia has far too many heartless and sanctimonious bastards already. The fact that their government is on the way out seems to make them uglier and shriller with each awful utterance.

“No-one here that I can see is calling for a ‘let them all in’ or an ‘open border policy’ “.

Bronwyn, Legrain has indeed been calling for this, as I understand it.

“What is being suggested is just and fair treatment for all asylum seekers and a prompt processing of their claims.”

I don’t think that the treatment of asylum seekers has ever been bad enough to warrant significant complaint, throughout the history of this phenomenon in Australia. Less than perfect, yes. A few unfortunate cases, yes. But overall, quite reasonable.

Neither has the processing of most claims been unreasonably long. The long ones have been the complicated ones or the ones for which there has been significant doubt about the veracity of the claim of refugee status and an inability to confirm or counter it.

And then we’ve got to consider the fact that a far greater leniency in criteria for meeting the status of a refugee, and thus for being allowed to stay in this country, has been given to those who have arrived in our waters, than has ever been given to people determined as refugees as part of the offshore program within the immigration quota.

Ludwig

"I don’t think that the treatment of asylum seekers has ever been bad enough to warrant significant complaint, throughout the history of this phenomenon in Australia. Less than perfect, yes. A few unfortunate cases, yes. But overall, quite reasonable."

First we locked them up in Curtin, Woomera, Port Hedland, Baxter or what ever other isolated hellhole detention centre we could dream up. They were imprisoned indefinitely, despite having committed no crime. They were left in limbo and spent years in detention even though most were genuine refugees. Already severely traumatised, by the time the Australian detention system had spat them out most of them had debilitating mental health issues.

We've now gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure they don't even set foot on Australian soil, intercepting and turning boats back to who knows what fate, excising islands from our coastline, and spending billions of dollars on off-shore detention centres.

Eight Rohingya asylum seekers have been on Nauru for seven months and they still haven't even received an initial assessment. And now in a new low and completely denied all human dignity they're to be shipped off and swapped like crates of apples.

I think you and I have a very different understanding of the word "reasonable".

And what do you mean by "a few unfortunate cases"? I hope you aren't referring to the sinking of SIEV X, Tampa and children overboard. These cases were much more than unfortunate. They were despicable, cowardly and unforgivable acts on the part of the Howard Government and are an absolutely shameful blot on Australia's history.

Bronwyn, I dispute that the vast majority of claims are genuine. Just because we can't prove people are not refugees, doesn't mean they are, but that seems to be the basis upon which we grant people political asylum.

To expand on what I said before, the UNHCR in Indonesia accepted only 19 per cent of people claiming to be Afghan nationals as refugees, while Australia has accepted up to 84 per cent of the same group (statistics from the DIMIA website). So do you think the UN is unusually brutal or is Australia a soft touch?

A better way of getting genuine refugees is getting them direct from refugee camps. Economic migrants are unlikely to want to spend months or years in a squalid camp in the hope of being granted asylum. The flow of boat people from Indonesia is mostly a scam aimed at playing on our sympathies. These people FLEW to Indonesia. Getting in a leaky boat for the last few kilometres of the journey is a stunt.

“First we locked them up in Curtin, Woomera, Port Hedland….”

No at first we didn’t lock them up Bronwyn. But after problems with people leaving the early processing centres with the intent of not being found, the detention system was launched. This became progressively harsher as more people broke out and attempted to disappear. The detention system evolved in conjunction with the need to keep tabs on asylum seekers and keep control of the whole process.

“…isolated hellhole detention centre…”

You have it fixed in your mind that these places are really bad. Well they aren’t. It has been necessary to hold asylum seekers rather than let them move freely in mainstream society. You surely can’t argue against that. You have a mixture of traumatised, desperate, aggressive and criminalistic people, many of whom don’t really understand or trust the authorities that are dealing with them. Of course there are going to be difficulties with detention in a regime like this. But the difficulties could be much worse, for them and for Australian citizens, if they were free to move amongst us.

“They were imprisoned indefinitely…”

Again, you seem to have the concept of a ‘prison’ firmly fixed in your mind in regard to asylum seekers. It is not the case. Given the need for these people to be kept from moving freely in our cities and all the problems associated with that, problems with refugee determination, merit in releasing whole groups at one time which means that they might all stay put until the most difficult case is resolved, the deterrence factor and perhaps quarantine, detention is a necessity. When guards, high walls and razor wire are implemented, directly due to attempted mischief and abscondment, the centres come to look and feel like prisons. But they aren’t.

There simply has to be a balance between the humane treatment of asylum seekers and the deterrence factor. Bronwyn, you don’t seem to be considering much else apart from the best standard of treatment of these people. But there is so much more to consider.

Grn

“I dispute that the vast majority of claims are genuine.”

It is well documented that on average 85% of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees. In 1999, when numbers of asylum seekers to Australia were at their high point, 97% of the claims made by applicants from Iraq and 93% from Afghanistan were proven to be genuine. You can dispute it all you like but the figures speak for themselves.

“The UNHCR in Indonesia accepted only 19 per cent of people claiming to be Afghan nationals as refugees, while Australia has accepted up to 84 per cent of the same group.”

Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention and is not obligated to assist asylum seekers. It can return them to their homeland regardless of the dangers they face and usually does. Australia is a signatory and is required to process asylum seekers’ claims, so you would expect its numbers of approvals to be higher. It is certainly no “soft touch” and has some of the harshest asylum seeker policies in the world.

“These people FLEW to Indonesia. Getting in a leaky boat for the last few kilometres of the journey is a stunt.”

Refugee families typically sell all they have to pay people smugglers to take one of them to a safe country. They have little idea of where they are going or how they will get there and the fact they might board a plane doesn’t in any way negate their refugee status. The boat trip is certainly no stunt. It’s an extremely risky and arduous voyage and many have lost their lives in boats that have sunk. That people would even get on these boats is testament in itself to their desperate circumstances.

Ludwig

“You have it fixed in your mind that these places are really bad. Well they aren’t."

Detention centres are prisons in all but name. They are built for maximum security and minimum comfort. The people in them have no idea how long they will be left there and very little to do while they wait out the arbitrary days, months or years before they can leave. They may have some freedom to move within them though a lot don’t. They can’t leave, unless they’re on Nauru, and where do you go to on Nauru? The rooms at Baxter have one small window looking onto sky. Detainees don’t have the certainty of prison sentences, they're sentenced indefinitely. Their spirit is broken slowly and many are driven to insanity. If you truly believe these places to be benign you have been conned by government spin.

“There simply has to be a balance between the humane treatment of asylum seekers and the deterrence factor. Bronwyn, you don’t seem to be considering much else apart from the best standard of treatment of these people. But there is so much more to consider.”

I am seeking a balance. Like you, I have an interest in environmental sustainability. I too understand the fragility of Australia’s environment and know that population control is vital.

I also believe in the dignity of human life. If people come to us in fear of their lives I believe it is our duty as fellow humans to try and help them, no matter how difficult it might be. Locking up people who have already suffered so much or deporting them back to danger is cruel and inhumane. We need to detain them initially for health and security checks, but after that they should be able to live in the community and contribute. That is what I call a balanced approach.

The many thousands of workforce immigrants and visa overstayers are placing far more pressure on resources than the comparitively small numbers of people seeking asylum ever will. And they have far less a compelling reason to leave their own country.

“We need to detain them initially for health and security checks, but after that they should be able to live in the community and contribute.”

This is interesting Bronwyn. You agree that they do need to be detained for health and security checks. I was under the impression that you were totally against detention.

Some of these people do have security histories and do try to pull the wool over our eyes and will abscond and try their damnedest not be found if they can. So you therefore realise that strong security is needed – of the type that has evolved in Australia over many years of experience with absconders: with high walls and razor wire.

If you can see why they need to be detained initially, then presumably you can see why they need to be prevented from escaping and absconding, if they are so inclined…which a significant fraction have been.

“That is what I call a balanced approach.”

Australia had a well-formed detention program prior to 2001, which was considerably harsher than your desired approach. But that didn’t stop an escalation in arrivals, which was about to blow right out of all proportion at the time of the Tampa incident. Obviously a stronger approach was needed in order to achieve that elusive balance between treating arrivals as best we could and deterring new arrivals as best we could.

Once the number of arrivals had started to accelerate, a decisive approach was needed.

Your ‘balanced approach’ wouldn’t work. It would lead directly to a reintroduction of the ‘Australia is a soft target for asylum seekers’ message that had spread around the world in 2001. Within weeks, we would have a massively increased rate of arrivals.

My wife and her (now) late husband escaped their homeland and were refugees having to leave everything behind. Her husbands crime? He had just been released after about 9 months imprisonment, with bashings, because they suspected he had sold his invention to the “west”. He never did. Upon release, they managed to escape with their child. Luckily being able to get a passport for the child and my (now) wife.
They were lucky in that regard being able to escape having identity papers but risking to be imprisoned by daring to pursue passports.

Still, as a “constitutionalist” I try to consider what is constitutionally appropriate before contemplating emotional issues.
Constitutionally, any person who is alleged to be in breach of Commonwealth law must be handed over to State authorities and be subjected to a “judicial decision” by a State Court to determine their innocence or guilt. Section 120 of the Constitution provide that the States shall provide detention for any person accused (formally charged) and/or convicted.

As such, I view holding any refugee in any kind of styled concentration camps is unconstitutional. Exchanging refugees is also unconstitutional. We have a constitution and unless we operate within the framework of the constitution we are no better then any other terrorist as we terrorize others to be denied the very rights provided for in the Constitution we claim others do.
It is therefore very simple; If the Federal Government claims refugees are criminals in breach of Commonwealth law then have them charged and placed before a Court of law to be adjudicated upon by the judiciary as to their guilt or innocence. After all, isn’t that for which we have a judiciary?
See also;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 0-9751760-2-1 (prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3

See also http://www.schorel-hlavka.com

CJ Morgan “I would like to swap Australian "scrotes" like Col Rouge for those desperate but deserving people who increasingly frequently make the unenviable decision to abandon their homelands “

As an immigrant I waited in line in my homeland before I was deemed acceptable for migration to Australia.

I guess CJ Morgan you will live a frustrated life. Australia “chose” me. In fact I distinctly remember the migration officer at Sydney commenting when he saw the visa – “ah some fhe chosen people” (a particularly warming welcome to Australia). Somehow I doubt you migrated here – I can suggest that for two reasons,

Your flippancy suggests you would not have the strength of character to wait in line, as I did

The historic quality of your posts would suggest you would fail the basic competency tests for entry.

Thus whilst I had to prove my “worth”; your “tenure in and citizenship of “Australia is no more than “an accident of birth”.

I wonder how you would go if you had to qualify for entry into Australia?

- disappointingly I think - probably resorting to the services of an illegal people smuggler.

Col Rouge:
Like you, I enjoy the privilege of Australian citizenship as a migrant not by birth, and like you I applied through formal channels and waited my turn to be processed. But refugees – unlike us conventional migrants – can’t sit safely and hopefully waiting for their applications to be processed. They are forced to flee, often without papers, sometimes escaping personal persecution at the hand of their government, with little idea of where they’re going or how long they’ll stay.

A woman I know fled Sudan when her village was attacked, her hone destroyed and her parents and husband killed. She settled initially in a camp in Ethiopia but her children were at risk of abduction and conscription by raiding militias. So she walked, carrying the youngest, to a camp in Kenya, from where she successfully applied to come to Australia. Should she have “waited her turn” in Sudan? Or Ethiopia? I admire her strength, courage and persistence in getting herself and her sons firstly out of Sudan, then out of Ethiopia into Kenya (all on foot) and finally into Australia. That’s strength of character and determination than no immigration form can quantify, and she’s a great asset to this country.

Ludwig:
Your slippery slope argument that because there is a case for initially detaining some refugees until their health and security status is ascertained doesn’t make sense. Health checks can be done in a matter of days, if not hours. True, not all refugees have papers, and a few might even fake or hide them, but many do have papers, and the risk of absconding for the rest is pretty low (though not zero). Prolonged detention should be necessary only in the small minority of cases where someone represents a significant risk to the community, and their case cannot be decided quickly.

I find your argument that we should treat asylum seekers harshly to deter new arrivals deeply repugnant, against all principles of natural justice and fairness. Like my Sudanese friend, these are mostly people trying to escape terrible dangers and oppression. We should offer them compassion.

``Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention and is not obligated to assist asylum seekers. It can return them to their homeland regardless of the dangers they face and usually does. Australia is a signatory and is required to process asylum seekers’ claims, so you would expect its numbers of approvals to be higher.''

What you are saying makes no sense. The UNHCR is a UN agency, not an arm of the Indonesian government. Indonesian policies towards asylum seekers have nothing to do with the UNHCR's approval rate.

``Refugee families typically sell all they have to pay people smugglers to take one of them to a safe country. They have little idea of where they are going or how they will get there and the fact they might board a plane doesn’t in any way negate their refugee status. The boat trip is certainly no stunt. It’s an extremely risky and arduous voyage and many have lost their lives in boats that have sunk. That people would even get on these boats is testament in itself to their desperate circumstances."

Again, this is highly dubious. From my understanding, many if not most asylum seekers have very deliberately chosen Australia, often because they already have relatives here. It makes no sense to claim they would pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers with no idea of their destination. And I don't doubt that the boat trip is very dangerous. However, it's my understanding that the smugglers lie about how long and hard the boat trip is, even to the extent of stocking the boat with barely any food, to sustain the illusion. So, again, I don't buy the argument that because they come by boat they are necessarily desperate.

Ludwig,
Many times we have had this debate about illegals on OLO and other forums and do you notice that the "bleeding hearts' like Bronwyn always work on the emotive angle and will not accept any practical argument that detention is necessary to check the bona fides of the applicants stories. Any prolonged detention is mainly due to the applicant not accepting the adverse findings and they continue to appeal the findings, at our expense.

Then, as Bronwyn did, they bring up the SIEV X and Tampa. Again they will not accept that the SIEV X sank in Indonesian waters and was Indonesias responsibility. The survivors were taken back to Indonesia and that finally convinced those waiting that the sea trip WAS dangerous. To blame us that the boat sank is ridiculous and some have even cast slurs on our search and rescue, and defence, personel, saying they were racist.

In relation to the Tampa. The Tampa picked up people from a sinking vessel and was proceeding to port in Indonesia when she was hyjacked be the people she rescued and made to sail to Christmas Island. Off Christmas Island our Government interviened and a RAN vessel took those rescued to Nauru. The point here is that at least some of the rescued should have been charged with hyjacking and it is disappointing that they ended up in Australia. Shows just how much of a soft touch we are.

They may have some valid argument in the children overboard saga. However, it was not the first time we had to rescue women and children from the water and the next day the illegals sank the boat and we had to take them aboard. People that take such action should not be allowed in Aus, ever. We are bowing to intimidation.

We must continue to not let illegals on our mainland until they are found to be genuine refugees, and we should use UNHCR criteria. Not end up bending our own rules so as to accomodate them.

Rhian

“Health checks can be done in a matter of days, if not hours.”

Yes probably for most, but security checks can take much longer.

The risk of abscondment may be low overall, but it only takes a small number of absconders to create a lot of strife: to give all asylum-seekers a bad name in the eyes of the Australian public, and to cost an enormous amount of money and effort attempting to find them.

“I find your argument that we should treat asylum seekers harshly to deter new arrivals deeply repugnant…”

Fine! I don’t like it either. It is not a nice concept at all is it. Of course we initially desire to treat them as well as we can.

But we simply MUST be critically concerned about the deterrence factor, and therefore the balance between the treatment of asylum seekers and maintaining a strong border-protection regime.

I’m sure you can see exactly what would happen very quickly if we were to treat asylum seekers as Bronwyn or yourself would desire them to be treated. We would be subjected to a vastly increased number of arrivals.

We cannot create a situation where we would bring thousands of asylum seekers down upon us. We have to be very careful not to do that, for the sake of all involved.

Rhian, you don’t seem to spare a thought for this side of the argument.

We should offer refugees compassion in an entirely different way as I said earlier; by addressing the root causes of the problems via our international aid effort…. and NOT by way of accepting onshore asylum seekers.

Rhiann” But refugees – unlike us conventional migrants – can’t sit safely and hopefully waiting for their applications to be processed.“

Australia does not have an “unlimited” intake of all refugees but a defined annual quota.

The number of refugees available far exceeds the quota.

My point is simple. Consider the circumstances of two refugees, both equally worthy of acceptance.

Their only difference is

A: One is sat in a refugee camp for say 5 years, having submitted his papers and is awaiting for due process

B: One is a recent refugee but has engaged in the criminally illegal action of attempting to evade Australian migration laws by paying a people smuggler to get him into Australia at all costs and regardless that he is queue jumping ahead of A.

My preference is to reward the respect displayed by A and discourage the disrespect displayed by B.

Your preference is up to you but I bet if I lived next to A and you lived next to B, given the disregard and disrespect B has demonstrated for the law, you will have a greater need than I to lock up what can be readily stolen

Banjo

“…the SIEV X sank in Indonesian waters and was Indonesia’s responsibility.”

The SIEV X sank in international waters and credible evidence suggests it was within Australia’s surveillance zone. Australia and Indonesia were collaborating in an Upstream Disruption Program at the time in which boats were being deliberately overloaded and sabotaged as part of a deterrent strategy. Many questions remain unanswered as to the role of the UDP in this particular sinking. It is wrong to claim SIEV X was Indonesia’s responsibility. Australia was up to its eyeballs in this and one day an inquiry will prove it.

“The Tampa picked up people from a sinking vessel and was proceeding to port in Indonesia when she was hijacked by the people she rescued and made to sail to Christmas Island.”

Again, this is incorrect. The Tampa was closer to Christmas Island than anywhere else at the time of the rescue and was required by international law to take the rescued passengers there. This is the point at which the Australian Government intervened, well before the time you stated. It ordered the Tampa to take the rescued asylum seekers to Indonesia which was much further away. The boat had no facilities to accommodate these people, some of whom were unconscious and suffering from dysentry. No wonder the Captain stood his ground and refused to follow such a callous and illogical directive.

Regarding children overboard, the reason the asylum seekers disabled the boat’s engine was that the Australian navy was using gun fire to force the boat to turn around and go back to Indonesia, a journey both the boat and the passengers were incapable of surviving. In that situation, I think we might all resort to similarly desperate measures.

Yes, Banjo, I might “work on the emotive angle”. Afterall, we are talking here about the lives of vulnerable men, women and children who are suffering enormously. But I make sure I have my facts straight just the same.

Bronwyn,
It is all conspiracy theories is it not?

Fact. The Tampa captain altered course to Christmas island after a number of the rescued people entered the bridge and made threats relating to persons on board. As evidenced by the captain at an inquiry. That is a hyjacking!

Fact. The SIEV X was an Indonesian vessel, with an Indonesian crew. It was loaded and sailed from an Indonesian port. It sank off Indonesia. The survivors were rescued by Indonesian fishermen and taken back to Indonesia. The responsibility for the seaworthyness of the vessel belongs with the Indonesians. Go ask the Indonesians to conduct an expensive inquiry so blame can be aportioned.

I do not rule out the irresponsibility, recklessness and negligence of the pasengers for allowing their wives and children to sail on the vessel. The amazing thing is that it took so many voyages before a catasrophe occured.

But none of this suits people like you, who want to believe conspiracy theories.

Col Rouge

You can’t neatly separate the “good” refugees who patiently wait from the “bad” queue jumpers – most of the former were themselves without proper papers at some point, even if their unauthorised arrival was in some other country. And people coming here without authorisation are not necessarily “criminally illegal” – international conventions that Australia has agreed to abide by require that refugees be given asylum even if they don’t have papers.

Ludwig

We treat convicted criminals far more leniently than you advocate we treat refugees. We don’t prohibit bail, parole or home detention on the off chance that suspects and criminals might abscond or re-offend. We don’t lock them up indefinitely, or take months or years to hear their cases. We don’t regard making the innocent suffer as justifiable because it might deter the guilty.

I’d love to live if a safe and peaceful world where no-one is forced to leave their homes, families and roots to flee violence and persecution. By all means, lets try to contribute to that happening. But International goodwill and aid are not going to solve in a hurry the kind of crises that cause mass movements of refugees – from Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Congo, Iraq. These are caused by violence and the breakdown of security, often instigated and implemented by those countries’ own governments. We can’t justify neglecting the victims of these conflicts on the grounds we’re hoping that a few more aid dollars will make the problem go away.

Col Rouge

What justification do you have to assert that boatpeople are thieves? Have you ever met any and listened to their stories? Do you have any idea of the chaos and danger they face before and as they leave? Do you have any proof that they coldly and calculatedly choose one option over the other and one country before another? Most have never heard of Australia before they flee let alone know where it is or how to get there.

I'm going to include a brief extract about a hardened Vietnam viet whose similarly harsh views toward boat people changed when he actually met one. Unfortunately, word and posting limits will probably delay it somewhat, but hopefully you'll come back to read it and when you do perhaps it will help you reflect on your own position.

Rhian and Bronwyn, you're valiant efforts in attempting to open the eyes of some of the posters here is to be commended.

It is remarkable how ignorant and small minded some people are. It shows that they are absolutely convinced that never will they ever be in a situation themselves where they may have to flee.

The most pathetic posts are where people bleat on about how asylum seekers bypassed some other country or so. They obviously are completely unaware that all the Western countries combined only have to deal with 1/4 of refugees. The majority of refugees are in poor developing countries. Countries which are least able to deal with an influx of people. Pakistan has the largest number of refugees for in stance. Indonesia also struggles with many refugees and internally displaced persons.

Australia's whining about 1,000 asylum seekers is embarrassing. We have a large migrant intake, which includes only a very small refugee intake. It would be a great start to change that balance first. A 'queue' would then become a reality.

Migrants, who are not refugees, all come to Australia for economic and lifestyle reasons. Why those people who came here as migrants who had to jump through all the hoops to be allowed in, I’ve done them myself, are so resentful towards refugees is a mystery to me. It’s all a matter of whether or not you had a choice. Migrants to Australia freely choose to jump through the hoops for economic gain, not personal safety.

Is it reasonable that a nation like Australia, who does participate on the world stage should then somehow remain immune to the plight of refugees? We want to make money on a global stage, but when it comes to people we are isolationists?

There is no reason that is rational that justifies longterm mandatory detention, the pacific solution or this bizarre trade with the USA.

Rhian

“We treat convicted criminals far more leniently than you advocate we treat refugees.”

Excuse me; nothing could be further from the truth. Please don’t make assertions about what others believe when you don’t know them to be true.

You haven’t addressed my points about the importance of the deterrence factor or the need for a balance between the way we treat asylum seekers and the need to prevent an influx.

Do you think that we can offer the sort of treatment to asylum seekers that you would like to see without generating a massive increase in arrivals?

Given that there are literally millions of people who would come to Australia if they could, in an ongoing manner, how many do you think we could or should be accommodating?

Given that even the highest number that we could accommodate would still only be a drop in the worldwide bucket, would have practically zero effect on alleviating world poverty and refugee generation, and would be hugely expensive for the Australian taxpayer and economy, wouldn’t it be infinitely wiser to put our money, personnel and expertise into treating the causes of the problems at their sources as part of a coordinated international aid effort?

“But International goodwill and aid are not going to solve in a hurry the kind of crises that cause mass movements of refugees.”

And Australia accepting a few thousand refugees a year IS going to solve this problem?

Let’s not forget that we do take our fair share of refugees through the formal immigration program. I would like to see this doubled, within a much-reduced overall immigration intake.

We SHOULD be required to take in a certain number per annum, based on a per-capita basis of current population and our economic / environmental ability to accommodate them. We should also be required by international law to put at least 0.7% of our DGP (as recommended by the UN) into international aid, and that this aid be genuine and addressed where it is most needed and most effective.

And we should strive to prevent onshore asylum seeker movement.

Rhiann “You can’t neatly separate the “good” refugees who patiently wait from the “bad” queue jumpers “

I do not need to separate the refugees, the queue jumpers did that for me when they attempted to subvert the Australian migration regulations.

The “good” respect our laws of entry and settlement by waiting in line. Conversely, the bad choose to ignore due process, jump the queue and expect dispensation for their disrespectful attitude toward Australia’s own authority.

I find international conventions which are not supported 100% internationally have little real merit or credibility when used as any form of “standard”.

Finding excuses for queue jumpers does not help the position, it only appeases it.

Bronwyn-“What justification do you have to assert that boatpeople are thieves?”

I did not call them thieves, I merely pointed out that on the evidence of probability, someone who has reckless disregard for the rule of law and who attempt to circumvent Australia’s right to test refugee migrants before they enter the country is more likely to show similar reckless disregard for other people property than someone who has respected our legal processes by waiting in line for issue of a valid visa.

PS I am quite happy to reflect on my position, it is one which considers the rights of Australian’s to choose, through laws passed by our elected government, who can come to Australia. It respects our right to legislate and not be at the mercy of some unelected and unrepresentative swill humping antagonist with a carbuncle on their bum called “socialism international

Rhian, Yvonne and Bronwyn,
How about you put forward the numbers of "refugees" we should take in each year and under what conditions.

For instance. Do we reduce our skilled migrant intake to accomodate the "refugees'? How do we pay for inreased intake of 'refugees' and where would you advocate reducing the current spending to get the increased funds? Do we simply accept those that turn up on our shore? Do we let them loose in the community, where they may be vunerable to extortion by others, or never to be seen again? What about health checks to prevent massive influx of Hepatitis, AIDS or TB? What about the introduction of exotic diseases of plants and animals? Do they get Centrelink payments straight away?

It is one thing to be a critic of present policy, but it is quite another thing to cone up with another workable and practical alternative.

Some points seem to have been overlooked in this long and somewhat knotted string.
Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to refugees and incorporated that Convention into Australian law, where it remains.It is also a signatory to a number of other Conventions,Protocols and Agreements relating to refugees including the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The UN and internationally accepted definition of a refugee is:'' A person having a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,religion,nationality,membership of a particular social group or political opinion,is outside the country of their nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.''

Over the past 10 years the Australian Government has consistently broken both international and domestic law with respect to its treatment and handling of refugees.
When I worked on the Refugee Tribunal it was not difficult to weed out spurious claims,made easier for those Members who had lived and worked in the country of the claimant.
This Government has sought to put refugees into a category where
policy options exist,under the Convention and our own laws such options do not exist. Arrangements relating to the treatment and processing of refugees are legally not negotiable. There are no core and non core solutions available.
For the Howard Government to pretend that there are undermines core vales in Australian society which has paved the way for authoritarian consequences that all of us may come to rue.
Bruce Haigh

Col Rouge
I think the reasons why refugees flee and cross borders, often without official paperwork, are so compelling that they utterly eclipse any obligation to comply with migration regulations. Proportionality is the issue here. If my neighbour was trapped in his burning house I’d let him escape by jumping into my garden even though it’s technically trespassing.

Ludwig
It was you who said that asylum seekers should be imprisoned in case they abscond. I merely pointed out that we don’t let the same fears prevent us from allowing criminal suspects and convicts out on trust in some circumstances.

I don’t accept that the end justifies the means, so I don’t accept that treating the innocent harshly is justified as a means of deterring arrivals, even if it was effective, which I doubt.

It was you, not I, that talked about addressing the root causes of people becoming refugees. Of course we can’t solve the problem, but that is not a reason for dealing inhumanely with those who come here.

Banjo
I’ve indicated earlier that I think Australia can be proud of its formal refugee resettlement program. I’d be happy to see it increased, but I don’t feel strongly about that – we do more than many developed countries. We can’t set a quota for informal arrivals because we have no idea in advance how many there’ll be or what will cause them to come. We’ll have to continue dealing with these ad hoc. I just wish we'd do it more compassionately and expeditiously.

Bruce, great post.

Banjo, what we, as Australians, need to think about re our immigration is:

1. What is the total population Australia can realistically maintain.

2. Since, Australians are not sufficiently replacing themselves, instead of encouraging Australians to have more babies, thus adding to the population burden of our planet, immigration is a reasonable method of managing our population numbers.

3. Since skilled jobs should first and primarily be filled by young Australians or older Australians retrained, immigrants are not to be seen as a major source. Scrimping on training and education of your own people is not how to manage the economy of a Nation and the well-being of its citizens.

4. Australia needs migrants, there is a huge pool of desperate people wanting to make a new start. Just like after WWII, refugees, contributed enormously. Ideally, the majority of our immigrants should be people who need to come here to safety. So, the mix, should be the other way round to what it is now. In 2005-06 143 000 people migrated to Australia, these included only 14 000 refugees, all that is allocated for Humanitarian migrants. Australia had a net gain of about 60 000 in population numbers.

I have 3 teenage children. I get incensed with the difficulty and rigamarole re apprenticeships and tertiary placements. It is bizarre, that our own youngsters have difficulty in getting into Medicine say, yet we recruit doctors from overseas.

Or to get an apprenticeship. Kids, not at all academically motivated are being forced to stay in school till year 12, many wasting everybody’s time, while becoming more and more indoctrinated to seeing themselves as failures. One of my sons was in this situation. It was very, very difficult. A very frustrating uphill battle, while hearing from politicians we need to recruit skilled people from overseas. This is an outrage.

Banjo

"How about you put forward the numbers of "refugees" we should take in each year and under what conditions."

I think Australia could accommodate a refugee intake of 15000-20000 as long as there was a proportional reduction in our migration program so that net migration didn't increase.

30000 came to Australia last month on temporary work visas, yet we're going to great expense to keep out a few hundred asylum seekers who could just as easily fill these job vacancies. Many asylum seekers have professional qualifications which could be upgraded to our standards easily enough. Many are also willing to do jobs that are often hard to fill eg at abbatoirs.

You ask how we should pay for an increased intake. We are currently spending billions on detention centres and other deterrence measures which could be better spent on assisting asylum seekers to become self-supporting.

You mention health concerns. There needs to be an initial period of detention to complete health and security checks, maybe one or two months.

I agree, we need to offer alternatives. There's been a lot done in this area and there are some excellent policy statements around. The ALP, the Democrats and the Greens all have workable policy alternatives.

Col Rouge, Here's that extract I said I'd post yesterday.

WHEN Mohammad arrived at a Brisbane private hospital last August after spending nearly five years in offshore detention, most of it on Nauru, the reception from some of the other patients was less than welcoming.

One, in particular, was so upset that "illegal immigrants" from the Middle East were taking the beds of Australians who needed treatment that he made it his mission to have Mohammad and two other asylum seekers already at the hospital moved somewhere else. "I knew nothing of him. I just put him in the same bracket I put every person who came from somewhere else — I just didn't like him," says Alan, 59, a Vietnam veteran whose post-traumatic stress disorder was diagnosed only four years ago. Not only did Alan make his feelings known to anyone in authority at the hospital who would listen, from the administrators to the nurses, he encouraged other patients to take the same stand. "I was quite upset because I knew the hospital was full and there were other veterans waiting to come in and I thought it was wrong. So for the first 10 days, I made a real nuisance of myself to the authorities and nurses and even asked my wife to take me home. I just didn't want to be there with these people."

Then, late one evening, Alan was sitting in the corridor when Mohammad appeared with a plate and offered him a slice of watermelon. "My instinct was to say no, but I finally took a slice and, later on, he came back and asked if he could sit with me." Their conversation over the next two or three hours was, in Alan's words, a life-changer. Mohammad, 27, told his story, from his childhood in Iraq to the decision to flee Saddam Hussein's regime, to the experience with the people smugglers and, finally, what happened on Nauru. "I just couldn't imagine, given my background, how anyone could endure what he has endured and we became better than friends."

Bronwyn,

Our current growth rate is giving us a population doubling time of 53 years. In all of our capital cities (except maybe Hobart) the existing population is experiencing severe permanent water restrictions. According to the government's own State of the Environment reports since 1990, every environmental indicator except for urban air quality is getting worse. Sydney is even going backwards on that one according to the latest. Both rising per capita consumption and rising number of caputs matter, and in many cases the latter is more significant. Currently (ABS figures), two babies are born and one net migrant arrives for every person who dies. All you will succeed in doing with such a large intake is to eventually make Australia as poor, populous, and environmentally degraded as the places people are risking their lives to escape. You might even make us a source of refugees as a balkanised population squabbles over an inadequate pile of resources.

Every time we have a war (even WWII) we kill and maim innocent people, not to mention depriving them of their property. If you are not a complete pacifist you accept this. Of course a few thousand refugees are not a problem, but the difficulty is that, from the experience in Europe and North America where there is no mandatory detention, numbers will not stay small, and we are likely to end up with 20% genuine refugees like the UK and not 85% or 90% genuine as at present. Before 1980 there were less than 100,000 asylum claims a year in all the European countries put together. By 1992 there were nearly 700,000. See

http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3b810de44.html

“It was you who said that asylum seekers should be imprisoned in case they abscond.”

Excuse me again Rhian. I have said no such thing. It is not imprisonment. I would implore you to stop thinking of it in that way and start appreciating just why it is necessary to not allow asylum seekers to move about freely, until they have been found to be refugees.

And I would again implore you to be careful with the things that you attribute to other people. When you wrongly attribute things to others, it badly damages your argument and your presentation as a level-headed person in the eyes of others.

You haven’t made any attempt to answer the straight questions I put to you. Surely if this debate is to proceed in a sensible manner, we need to address each other’s concerns directly. Presumably you have no answers to these questions.

All you can say is that you don’t accept my reasoning, without giving any reason why…and without offering any alternative way of dealing with this difficult issue.

I also note that Bronwyn balked on this issue and has not replied to me since I raised it, again presumably because the argument for a balance between the treatment of asylum seekers and the necessity for strong deterrence is unanswerable to those who wish only to see the best possible treatment for these people, and are not willing to consider any other factors.

So Rhian if our discussion is to continue, can you address this point please. I don’t think there is any point in continuing until you tackle the issue of how asylum-seeker treatment is related to the deterrence or prevention-of-influx issue, and what would inevitably happen if we treated them in the way that you wish. Thankyou.

Yvonne,
Surprizingly, it appears that we may agree on some things.

1. We should insist that each political party put forward a population policy for us to evaluate. We must have a goal to aim for and it should be the basis of any migration policy. I raised this in "general discussion" here on OLO a few weeks ago and opinions varied from 10 million to 35 million.

2. I agree. We have enough people in the world already. Encouraging women to have more babies is ridiculas, and we even pay them. Any short fall in population can easily be made up by adjusting immigration.

3. I agree. We should train our own and not go poaching skilled workers from other countries that most likely need them far more than we do. I think it is an indicment on all governments, both State and Federal, and industry, that we have neglected this for years. Perhaps it all started when we were going to become the "clever country" and we all would get to sit in front of our own PC and everything would just happen without effort. Fantacy.

4. We differ here as I am not at all sure that we need immigration. Or at least high immigration. Big business wants high immigration as it gives sales growth for consumer goods without them competing with each other. Hence large donations to both major political parties. Some northern european countries seem to bet along OK without population growth and one day we will have to learn to do the same.

In view of current water shortage and lack of infastructure, I would advocate zero net immigration for some years.

Bronwyn,
Your figure of 15000-20000 is not much more than at present. But we do have to control the intake and put up deterants to stop people just turning up. Otherwise there would be a flood and an unacceptable strain on our resourses. I notice you accept that some detention is required for health and bona fide checks, therefore detention centres are required. Prolonged detention should not be necessary as if the applicants story does not check out, they should be deported forthwith. Appeal process only delays matters.

I do not agree that temporary work visas should be required for so many people. Skill shortage is the fault of business and Government.
Aussies will do the unpopular, hard and difficult work if given the right incentives. Take fruit picking. Vic Rail used to run special trains to the fruit areas for pickers and people took their holidays to coincide with the fruit season. All cash in hand but he money stayed in Aus and willing people paid off their house or block this way. Paul Keating stopped this when he made all employees have a tax file number to get work. The fruit pickers found it was not worth the effort after tax. If someone is prepared to be on a ladder in that heat then tax should not be required. This applies to other hard or difficult jobs as well. We have to encourage the willing. The money paid to these workers is soon back in the system and I do not begrudge anyone who is willing to work hard.

On immigration and refugee policies. The ALP has similar policies to the Libs and it was the ALP that put in detention centres. I have not seen latest Dems or Greens policies, but the last i saw did not impress me at all.

Ludwig
I did answer your question, you just don’t agree with me. I rule out treating refugees harshly as a deterrent (a) on moral grounds, for the same reason I rule out public flogging, (even though that might have a deterrent effect too) and (b) because I don’t accept that more humane treatment of refugees will lead to a substantial increase in arrivals. The numbers of people arriving here are determined by “supply” not “demand” conditions – historically it has been conditions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Vietnam that determine the numbers arriving here. There were time before the “Pacific solution” when boat people arrivals were negligible, and deterrence clearly wasn’t the cause.

Your distinction between “imprisonment” and “detention” is mere semantics, and therefore your argument that allowing refugees conditional access to the community is qualitatively different to letting paroled prisoners into the community does not stand up.

Divergence
Australia’s population rose by 270,000 over 2006. The extra fews thousand refugees Bronwyn has suggested is not going to make much difference.

Rhian,

You are correct. I read an extra zero, 200,000 instead of 20,000. Must get my eyes checked. 20,000 is quite reasonable for an offshore intake, if the regular immigration quota is cut to accommodate the greater number of refugees.

There is still the issue, however, of how this quota would be enforced on unauthorised arrivals, especially since Bronwyn is against detention. Even if their refugee claims are rejected, it is extremely difficult to deport such people once they are out in the community. All appeals must first be exhausted. Corrupt businessmen and politicians make it easy for them to hide. If they are caught, then the government must prove where they came from (often difficult when valid travel documents have been destroyed or never existed), and the home country must cooperate with the deportation. (See the Migration Watch UK site for the problems Britain has had with this issue. For the 1997-2002 period, only 21% of claims were accepted as genuine, even after appeal, but only 13% of the claimants were deported.)

Unless you are a complete pacifist, you accept that innocent people can be hurt in defending yourself. Just consider all the innocent victims of WWII, even leaving aside the terror bombing. Why is this case different?

Divergence
This case is different because refugees inflict no harm on us, and therefore any harm we inflict on them is not self-defence. Nor are we at war with them, but rather they are very often victims of wars elsewhere. So the damage we do them is not unfortunate collateral damage.

I believe we gain more than we lose from our migrant intake, including our refugee intake, because of the cultural awareness and diversity they bring. But the benefit of multiculturalism is a different issue, and I don’t want to stray off topic.

I’ll admit that there is an initial cost to the community in settling refugees, because many need support at first including language training etc, but over time they gain work and become productive members of the community, repaying that investment. Furthermore, because the number of refugees is so small the proportionate costs are pretty small in a country with a trillion dollar economy that’s just brought down a $236 billion dollar Commonwealth budget (to say nothing of the states’ spending, which is as much again).

The UK data you quote seem to be different from the Australian experience, as most arrivals claiming asylum here are found to be legitimate and are granted residency. And the experience with asylum seekers allowed into the community while their paperwork is processed is, as I recall, pretty good. Very few abscond

BRUCE....if it is so easy to weed out the spurious claims, mind telling us why so many 'spurious' claimants are still here ? (or were for some long time)

Let me guess. They 'disagreed' with the Tribunal decision.

So, the political parasites (Leftoid lawyers) jump on the job, and extennnnnnd out their positions, appeal after appeal, and while they are doing this, they (or persons similarly seeking to just 'damage' the government) arrange all these 'monitor groups' looking at the detention centres, creating reports and stirring the media all for the simple reason of a political agenda.

I agree,... it IS easy to determine spurious claims. But those notorious lawyers tend to cling stronger than a limpit mine to them.

Bronwyn, the case of 'poor mohammad' and 'Callous Alan' is just a heart jerk. Of COURSE such things are going to happen, but it so happens that Alan appears to have his own psychological problems. It does not change the fact that Mohammad probably 'country shopped' on the way HERE, leaving safety and assylum in other countries.

Country shoppers have no right of assylum in my view. If 'assylum' was truly their issue, they would (or SHOULD) happily take the first available place which provides them with safety.

CONVENTIONS and PROTOCALS. We can add restrictions, exemptions, and proviso's to suit our national interest. The sooner the better.

Most of you are ignoring the serious political and social ramifications of allowing more Muslims into Australia

Divergence

“Every time we have a war (even WWII) we kill and maim innocent people, not to mention depriving them of their property.”

I agree with this statement. It’s very much part of what drives my whole position on this issue. But I don't agree with your implication that we should just accept it as inevitable and of no concern to us in Australia. In particular, when we are the perpetrators of war, as we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a very real responsibility to do what we can to alleviate the suffering we have caused and to assist refugees. This is why I find John Howard’s position so despicable. He is happy to take us to war but he won’t face up to its difficult consequences.

“…we are likely to end up with 20% genuine refugees like the UK and not 85% or 90% genuine as at present.”

This is a false leap of logic. We are much further away than the UK and the vast ocean distances in most instances act as a natural barrier to all but the genuine and most in need.

“…every environmental indicator except for urban air quality is getting worse.”

I agree, our degraded environment is a problem and this is somewhat of a sticking point for me in regards to the whole asylum seeker issue. But on balance I still think we can afford a slightly bigger humanitarian intake than our current one. Protecting the environment shouldn’t have to come at the expense of our human rights obligations. And really these are very small when you consider the overall scale of the world situation.

If we scale back mainstream migration numbers, lower our water usage and energy consumption and decentralize our population we will still reduce our ecological footprint on both an overall and a per capita basis. If the Greens can reconcile their passion for environmental protection with a simultaneous concern for human rights, I think anyone can.

Ludwig

“Your ‘balanced approach’ wouldn’t work. It would lead directly to a reintroduction of the ‘Australia is a soft target for asylum seekers’ message that had spread around the world in 2001. Within weeks, we would have a massively increased rate of arrivals.”

I think you’ve succumbed to John Howard’s fear campaign on this one, Ludwig. Perhaps you’ve looked at that fridge magnet once too often!

Seriously, I think you overrate the deterrence value of harsh detention policies. As pointed out by Rhian, it is the “supply” rather than the ‘demand” conditions that determine the numbers of arrivals.

There might be some increase in numbers as you suggest but I doubt that they would ever revert to 2001 levels. There are many policies in place now that would prevent that from happening and even if we had a change of government they are unlikely to be rolled back any time soon. We've excised islands that were once key arrival points, we’ve increased our surveillance and interception of boats and we now collaborate much more closely with the Indonesian Government.

I would also like to reiterate Rhian’s point that it is repugnant to punish innocent people in order to deter others. Aren’t you ever troubled by the cruelty inflicted on individuals in order for people like us who are already living very comfortably to”feel secure”? How many asylum seekers drown when boats are intercepted and tuned back? We’ll never know. How many are left living in fear and squalor in shanty conditions in Indonesia? How many are being left to rot on Nauru, Lombok and soon Christmas Island? How many are refouled back to danger and death? Again, we’ll never know as the Government doesn’t follow up on what happens to those it deports.

I wasn't baulking on this issue, Ludwig. I just don't buy into your paranoia, that's all.

Bronwyn,

15 or even 20 thousand is OK, but I have a lot less faith in our natural barriers than you do. New Zealand and Iceland can afford to take the high moral ground, but asylum seekers have made it to Australia from Irian Jaya in dugout canoes. If Indonesia decided to be less of a good neighbour and there were no mandatory detention, I suspect that numbers would quickly escalate. There is a lot of poverty and other misery in the world.

If you look at the various environmental footprint sites you will see that it would take about 3 Earths to give everyone a modest European standard of living, even if the resources were equally distributed. That is now; the global population has a 53 year doubling time at present rates. Resource shortages are behind most refugee crises. If sufficient numbers flood in, the effect on our quality of life, our culture, and our personal freedoms will be exactly the same as if they got here through a military invasion.

Yes, we could accommodate a larger population. Just herd the bulk of the people into tiny high rise flats that are freezing cold in the winter and stifling sweatboxes in the summer. Gardens, pets, detached houses, and private cars are strictly for the elite. The people in the flats will have plenty of togetherness, since they will be able to hear all about their neighbours' arguments, sex lives, childrearing problems, and tastes in music (or the lack thereof) through thin walls and open windows. For further savings, ordinary people will be restricted to a joyless, limited vegetarian diet and one shower and change of clothes a week, with everything rationed. To keep the lid on, we will need plenty of secret police and neighbourhood monitors to ensure that no one does, says, or thinks anything remotely subversive.

It is better for the third world people to do something about overpopulation and mismanagement, with us giving them a hand up where we can, than to turn the whole world into one vast slum.

Rhian

“Ludwig I did answer your question.”

No you didn’t. You only said: “I don’t accept that the end justifies the means.”, which is a total avoidance of the issue.

At any rate, you only touched on one of four questions.

You’ve given a slightly more detailed answer in your last post:

“The numbers of people arriving here are determined by “supply” not “demand” conditions…”

Do you really think that the potential supply of refugees that would come here if they could, would ever be insignificant? Come on; the supply is overwhelmingly huge! If we had no border protection, ie no reason not to treat asylum seekers with open arms and the utmost hospitality, the most enormous influx would result, end of story.

Perhaps you can suggest how we could have a strong border-protection regime as well as a significantly higher standard of humane treatment for asylum seekers.

continued

May I suggest that your moral judgement on this issue is flawed. A true moral outlook would take into account all the factors, not just one in isolation. Other factors directly related to this issue are;

The moral responsibility to keep Australian society coherent and as free of conflict as possible. A significant ongoing number of asylum seekers cum refugees would generate considerable public objection, economic cost and threat to social cohesion, as it has done in the past. An inevitable hardening of public attitude towards asylum seekers would happen if the numbers became significant, which would no doubt translate into harsher treatment for them.

The moral obligation to not subject asylum seekers to the ordeal of getting to Australia, to be subjected to long periods of detention and then rejection or long periods of temporary visa residence and hence uncertainty if they are accepted.

The moral obligation to refugees accepted through our offshore program, which are displaced in terms of the annual quota by those accepted via the asylum seeker route.

The moral obligation to do our bit in the global humanitarian battle, which we can do in much better ways than accepting asylum seekers.

The moral obligation to curtail environmental degradation and direct this country towards sustainability, which necessitates stabilising the population.

All-considered, the best moral approach Australia can take to this issue is to boost its effort towards addressing refugee issues at their sources, double our annual offshore refugee intake and make it patently clear that asylum seekers are not welcome and will be detained for long periods if they do come, returned if they don’t meet the definition of a refugee, and given temporary residence to be returned when conditions at home are safe, if they are found to be refugees.

Bronwyn – you can post all the personal and particular evidence you like and regale us with tales of how Mohammad, the brave illegal immigrant, overcame the attitudes of Australians and it means absolutely nothing at all.

The reason the symbols of justice are traditionally shown with a blindfold is she is expected to be fair handed and even; regardless of how “worthy” or otherwise a particular case might be dressed up to seem., just as you dress up and selectively choose examples to suit your argument.

My statements and standards are evenly based on impersonal standards where the outcome is applied, blindly and regardless of the emotively contentious blackmail which your type of argument relies upon.

I accept there will always be “exceptions” to every rule and we have ministerial discretion, designed to be employed in those rare cases where “real exceptional circumstances” exist but applying such “discretion” consistently to all and every applicant debases the very values which are expected to be exercised.

Further, nothing you have said counters my simple claim that -

A refugee who respects our migration laws displays infinitely superior moral character and worthiness to be allotted a scarce refugee visa than some one who deliberately attempts to circumvent and flout those same migration laws, regardless of the level of emotional blackmail used to undermine the standards of law abiding behaviour expected in an orderly civil society.

Bronwyn

“There are many policies in place now that would prevent that from happening…. We've excised islands…we’ve increased our surveillance…and we now collaborate much more closely with the Indonesian Government”

Yes! I would have thought that you would be very much against all of this. If you are in favour of it, then I’m sorry, but you’ve lost me. I mean, these measures are strongly anti-asylum-seeker entry into Australia, which has surely got to be against your basic premise of wanting to accept them with open arms and excellent hospitality.

Could you please elucidate your position on this.

“Aren’t you ever troubled by the cruelty inflicted on individuals in order for people like us who are already living very comfortably to ‘feel secure’?”

What cruelty are you talking about exactly? The acceptance of asylum seekers, followed by proper and thorough determination of their claims for asylum, while providing food, shelter and relative safety? Then the acceptance of the majority of them as refugees, in fact of anyone who is not very obviously a bogus asylum seeker or criminal? We could just refuse to take them at all.

Don’t you think our national security is rather important? Don’t you think the maintenance of a strong society with minimal conflict it is a necessary prerequisite for us to play a meaningful humanitarian role? Don’t you think Australia has every right to protect its security and minimise conflict regardless of anything else?

continued

“How many asylum seekers drown when boats are intercepted and tuned back?”

My goodness, isn’t this part of my argument, not yours? - the prevention of people launching themselves on precarious journeys in rickety boats. Let’s strive to prevent that, for goodness sake!

“How many are left living in fear and squalor in shanty conditions in Indonesia?”

I have no idea. Do you? Indonesia is a halfway house. No asylum seekers would get stranded there if none embarked on the journey to start with. There wouldn’t be anyone stranded along the way if the message was crystal clear that Australia does not want asylum seekers heading its way.

“How many are being left to rot on Nauru, Lombok and soon Christmas Island?”

None are left to “rot” and none ever have been.

“How many are refouled back to danger and death?”

Australia does its best to determine the real dangers of refoulment, and to the best of our ability does not send people back to situations of grave danger. We uphold the principle of non-refoulment.

Ludwig,
As I have previous stated elsewhere;
The Constitution is our ultimate law. Anything else has to conform to it. If we do not like it then we have a choice to express this in a Section 128 of the Constitution referendum and so amend the Constitution, but unless and until this is done anything that is being don in conflict to the Constitution is unconstitutional and so unlawful.
International agreements are made by Governments because it may suit them but cannot override constitutional constrains. To do otherwise would mean that the Government could nullify the Constitution entirely by making all kinds of agreements. For example the prohibition regarding religion could be side stepped by making some agreement with another country regarding religious matters.
The very existence of the government, so also the parliament and the Judiciary, is because we the People have agreed for them to operate within the terms we provided in the constitution. We sanctioned them to work within it. The moment they go beyond that they are violating our rights, and once you accept them to do so, merely because it might suit your purpose in something, then they can do it in regard of anything else what you may not particularly like.

The Constitution is our PERPETUAL LEASE and we should not allow it to be vandalised because of certain issues that we may like to have done. Nothing stops us to amend the Constitution by the provisions outlined in Section 128 and as such it is not that the Constitution it too old or too difficult rather it protects our constitutional rights and anyone coming under its provisions, that includes refugees.
We cannot have it both ways, so to say, have the cake and eat it. We have a Constitution we respect and observe or we have a dictatorship!
Meaning that to accept unconstitutional/illegal conduct towards assylum seekers is to support a dictatorship.
Threat them legally proper and and many problems might be resolved and at a far lesser cost to the taxpayers and without endangering our security.

Well isn’t this fascinating. I thought we had two passionate debaters on this thread; Rhian and Bronwyn. But as soon as the debate starts to get interesting, they abandon it!

LUDWIG

You may find it interesting what is debated that suits you whereas I respect any view given, even those contrary to my own, as after all they are as much entitled to state their views as I am.

For the record, my wife and her (now late) husband and child escaped, and both she and her husband were sentenced in absenteeism to about 9 years of imprisonment. Soon after they escaped communist regime after her husband had been imprisoned, and beaten up, for selling his invention to the West. This, even so he never did sell his invention at all to the West. As my wife makes clear, because she was a linguistic in Russian, and spoke other languages also, she was able to talk herself and her husband and child through the border guards and escaped. But, she makes clear that had they been caught they most likely would have been executed there and there. Now, while my wife’s husband was upon release smart enough to get immediately travel documents for the child and they were able to escape, it was a major risk.
Now, you may have your views about refugees, and whatever, but if you never have experienced reality why a person may despite facing possible death still desire to escape then why not be open minded and first LISTEN to some real versions of event then to merely assume that people might risk life and limb for a dangerous trip by unseaworthy boat.
As a “constitutionalist” I can see we can secure our borders yet treat refugees in a humane and legal way. Our constitution is based on this, but grubby politicians who are only interested in political power play could not care-less what is constitutionally appropriate. WorkChoices is a clear example, in regard of which I am publishing a book this week to expose why it is unconstitutional!
Once you accept dictatorship over a constitutional democracy, then you lost all your constitutional-rights!

You may not find this kind of debate interesting, but too often I have to repeat to other; "I TOLD YOU SO."