Good try but in the end we take 13,750 people each year - I think 6,000 are referred from UNHCR and the rest are sponsored applications. There are not enough places, that is why it is so hard to get a visa. Most are rejected. But if someone turns up we are obliged to take them and they become one of those places in our program. Hence the argument about queue-jumping. If you want to make it easier to apply then you have to offer more places, as we absolutely should, but even then it will not be enough and people will still be rejected, in spite of their need, so they will still try other methods for seeking safety. Unless the world deals with the millions of people seeking a safe home, boats and planes outside the minimal places offered by resettlement countries will still be the only way to find help for many people. Refugees identified by UNHCR in 2009, 15.2 million. Resettlement places now available to UNHCR, 80,000. 43 million people were displaced at end of 2009, the highest number since the 1990s. the developing world carries the largest burden in hosting refugees, what we really need to do is stop complained and take up our share of the burden.

Legal Eagle's article makes a few interesting points but he does not take the arguement to its logical conclusion.
At the moment legal immigration is running at about 1 per cent of population which is as high or higher per-capita than it was in the 1950s and, of course, much larger in absolute terms. It works out to somewhere around 200,000 a year.
All of the illegial immigrants ever held in camps since the start of the Howard Government would add up to just a fraction of one year's worth of present legal immigration.
But we can't just simply wave them in. 'Okay, if you get here fair enough.'If we did that then we would very quickly be innundated with refugees. More than a few lives would be lost as they put to sea in anything to make the crossing.
Further, the issue of illegial immigration is one of those known to swing marginal electorate voters. Gillard's givernment will somehow have to stem the flow of illegial immigrants - the much maligned policies of the Howard government did this - wihtout being seen to be like Howard. And be seen to be doing so, and quick.
Grand gesture is needed. Suggestions anyone?

Like most “weeks” for this that and the other, Refugee Week will be unknown and uncared about by most Australians. Particularly as most Australians are sick and tired of ‘refugees’ – mainly in the form of illegals smuggled into Australia by criminals and welcomed and escorted to Christmas Island by expensive RAN craft. Kevin Rudd’s demise was due to the problem with illegals in no small measure. There is nothing to say that Gillard is any more capable of dealing with the situation than Rudd was. It is hoped, though, that she will carry on with the proposed legislation which “may lead to humanitarian aid workers who assist asylum seekers getting in trouble.” It’s well past time that that fifth-column of people working against Australia’s interest was dealt with.

Most Australians would also be bemused to hear of the “enormous contribution refugees make to the nation” when so-called refugees are a mighty drain on Australia’s economy, costing millions to transport hither and yon because of the Labor government’s broken border protection promises and their total inability to stop the boats.

This anonymous author’s understanding that “… if you’re an asylum seeker who manages to get a toe on Australian soil, you’re much more likely to have reached barlee, but if you’re still outside our territory, your situation is much tougher” raises the gross unfairness of Australia’s incompetence which sees illegals queue-jumping over properly processed people who have been waiting for years in overseas camps to be taken in by a willing country. In Australia’s case, the number of bone fide refugees allowed in under the Convention is severely reduced by those arriving illegally, undocumented, and with dubious claims. In other countries, the only way that people are dealt with at all is if they actually reach the country illegally. There is no Australia-like agreement to take in any amount of UN-processed refugees in an orderly fashion.

.....

......

This lawyer has clearly spelt out for the ‘good’ people who want to pander to illegals the downright unfairness of their beliefs and the Australian Government’s lack of commitment to a fair go in encouraging illegal entry and people smugglers by ignoring their own laws.

Why were people “…knocked back when they applied from overseas…”? Because they were processed by the UN which, despite it’s many faults, have tougher criteria than Australia does. Why do you think that the illegals are going through other countries where UN stations exist to get to Australia? Because they know they would be knocked back by the UN because they don’t have a case. They know that silly, weak Australia accepts any yarn they hear from ‘desperate’ people, who are facing no more personal danger now than has been present in their countries for centuries.

Now is a good time to take advantage of the weakness of Western countries like Australia to get the sort of life they are too lazy and cowardly to fight for in their own country. They are here to bludge on what the Western world fought and died for long ago. They are content, too, to run away from home while Australian and coalition soldiers are killed where they bolted from.

We are not talking about post-WW2 refugees who were similar to ourselves, and who have helped build Australia for anyone chooses to turn up now; we are talking about people who have not contributed to their own countries, and who will certainly not contribute to ours, as the wet-Left insists they will.

Australia, in common with other Western countries, has surrendered its right to protect its borders and to decide who is allowed to come to Australia for fear of being called ‘racist’; for fear of the school- marmish and interfering entity ‘world opinion’, and the drivelling, self-hating and anti-Western white liberals who have too much influence for their numbers

It seems that border security should also include the ways the illegal immigrants would be able to obtain legal documents without proper procedure. Current system of records of personal information is designed as to conceal full name of the person. Owner of the identity does not know what in fact is recorded and that creates incidents where the person would be proceeded under alternate identity. Thus ‘clean’, verifiable identity would be crystallised and pack of documents produced. I have also read the cases where people buy birth certificates and other certificates – helps to start normal life without lengthily visa procedure or detention. False identity would use proper documents printed on government printers. That illegal immigration is not accounted for. While attention is switched to few hundreds of boat people a year etc, the area where impostors immediately come into all the benefits for Australian citizens via the most illegal way is difficult and seems cut out of attentions just because that might be concern of the design of the government recordkeeping system and most likely corruption.

The classification of an asylum seeker as a refugee is a greatly subjective process. In the end it often comes down to whether or not an asylum seeker's claims are to be believed, and in most cases without any real evidence.

The problem in assessing claims of asylum seekers is that it cannot be determined without doubt what has actually happened to them. It is standard practice for asylum seekers to destroy identity and travel documents prior to arrival and then claim refugee status, although such documents had been used for travel through other countries up until arrival at Australian immigration points.

All enquiries after the arrival of an asylum seeker involve assessments as to whether or not the story of persecution they present is believable. The immigration department can make inquiries offshore to test the story, but this is time consuming and expensive and will not always resolve the matter.

While the law says the onus of proof in a refugee status application is on the applicant, this has in practice evolved into applicants challenging the Australian Government to disprove their stories. As very few stories from remote war zones can be conclusively and individually disproved the asylum seekers get the benefit of the doubt and so gain refugee status.

The net result is that for many years every person getting on a boat to Australia with an intention to claim asylum has a prepared story that is an effective distillation of the stories of previously successful applicants. The story has to be moving enough to engage the 1951 Convention protection obligations, but at the same time vague enough to be uncheckable and unverifiable. The further an asylum seeker is from their home country, the more difficult it is to confirm the facts of their story.

The entire refugee assessment process is flawed by error and guesswork, which greatly works to the advantage of the refugee claimant, and results in abnormally high acceptance rates.