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

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

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

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

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

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

Weird, eh?

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

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

BTW, I was not even a Howard fan.

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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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