...The sneaky trick is classifying a jail as a detention centre. I am surprised this point has not been the focus of attack by activists opposing the policies of detention.

...What has been demonstrated by resulting events in the latest riots is that methods of riot control used are indifferent, leading one correctly to the conclusion that the classification of holding centres are for official convenience only.

...I believe the detention centres should be more accurately described as prisons, and therefore the class of inmate therefore should be better clarified. For example, to hold children in jail conditions is totally unacceptable, and is the immediate issue to be dealt with

95% of boat arrivals succeed in getting visas compared to less than 50% for plane arrivals. This is testament to the efficacy of arrival with no documentation in a system where the state has to prove that the arrivals' story is a fabrication.

The investment of $15000 in a boat trip compared to $1000 on a plane where documentation is required guarantees entrance.

The TPV or temporary protection visa which prevents them importing their families should be the best that they can get.

This rat cage is entirely the fabrication of the failed Labor immigration policy, and the deaths are on Juliar's head.

Bruce
The shock jocks are all about bringing in advertising dollars - that is what some of mainstream journalism has become.

I have no idea what the conditions are like, do they differ much from jails?

I imagine they must or we would be seeing prisoners rioting on a regular basis. Maybe the answer lies more in the quality and size of accommodation if we are to remain with detention as the only option.

ASIO might be well resourced but given the number of applications has grown, are those resources being utilised in the assessments area? Having worked in government I doubt very much the money is allocated to the worker bee end.

There has to be a better way to perform clearances but I cannot imagine what how it could be done any faster. What is the solution?

It is difficult when there is inadequate identification papers but if the refugee has been resident in another country prior to seeking asylum in Australia (like Indonesia) there may be some existing paperwork but not necessarily given much work is probably done under the radar.

It is a travesty that governments ever allowed children in detention. Perhaps there is a case to trial a community arrangement. That is, asylum seekers living in refugee accommodation within communities conditional on reporting (similar to parole obligations) until assessments were completed. If the applicant fails to report on a regular basis or disappears then the application is withdrawn.

This would have to be associated with additional future costs for law enforcement and housing including extra resourcing depending on how the plan works.

It will also be difficult politically when there are many homeless already in this country and where the waiting lists for government housing are long including for disability applicants.

Clarification;

...I believe Government honesty will assist greatly if detention centres are reclassified as prisons: Reclassification will allow the Government to legitimately separate women and young children from their male family members, allowing the desired incarceration process to continue “acceptably” as a much more useful tool of deterrent to illegal immigrants.

...The reclassification will allow the legitimate use of the full range of riot protocols and tools to quell unrest, as under Australia wide norms for prison control, which our communities currently accept, and will re-establish the Government onto the moral high ground, which it loses with the family “conglomerate” approach of current detention centres

Bruce and any others,

I would be interested in receiving a comment on a speech made at a public meeting in 1907 by Sir Edmund Barton, a man with a big reputation in this country, both as a Judge and as our first Prime Minister, (somewhat different in quality to the feckless Ms Gillard), and who was not compromised in his allegiances. Australia was first, always.
A man whose actions and character can be admired and respected, rightfully so.

Somewhat different to our current batch of political opportunists of general poor quality, both parties equally as bad. How did we reach this stage? Is it the general apathy of Australians to anything other than the pleasures of sport and wealth creation? You get the government you vote for is the old axiom. How sad it is that we have to endure a further period of this government, followed by the next, which, based on history, will be just as incompetent.

Back to Edmund Barton......

‘In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an Australian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an Australian, and nothing but an Australian.. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an Australian, but something else also, isn't an Australian at all. We have room for but one flag, the Australian flag.... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the Australian people.'

How do his comments rate with the people of this country in 2011?

We would do our country a great disservice not to be guided by the difficulties being experienced in other parts of the world right now and to ensure that the same mistakes are avoided here.

One of the biggest concerns by the Australian public is the potential number of criminals and thugs who are amongst the refugees.

One sure way to sort out the good from the bad is to enforce a strict regime of deportation of the criminal element. One strike and you're out, no exceptions.

I would expect that the crime rate amongst these ethnic minorities would dramatically drop if such a system were enforced.

I was aware of a case of some non citizens from New Zealand had lengthly criminal records and yet they still had not been deported. The state police and the federal authorities must learn to communicate effectively and act on information.

Bruuuuce!! Come on!!

You wrote:

<< It beggars belief that the Minister for Immigration, the luckless Chris Bowen, should seek to punish refugees on Christmas Island for the problem he has created. >>

So the minister should just completely not make any attempt to rein in those who started, promulgated or otherwise took significant part in the fracas, eh? OF COURSE he should make attempts to discipline those involved.

Quite regardless of the causal factors or legitimacy or otherwise of the complaints of asylum seekers, we CANNOT have that sort of thing happening. OF COURSE the minister should move decisively to stop it from happening again. And of course he should seek to deal with those who were most seriously involved, rather than treating everyone the same.

<< it is the same as the mean and narrow John Howard saying, "We will determine who comes here and when" >>

So Howard shouldn’t have said that eh? OF COURSE we (the people of Australia, and our government) should be able to determine who comes to this country and to be able to have full control over our borders. Of COURSE the PM should be able to assert this without being condemned for it. Of COURSE it would be (is) ludicrous for us to not have control over our national borders!

Bruce, it would appear that you are just going to be condemnatory of Gillard, Abbot, Bowen and Morrison, no matter what, short of them just doing away with detention altogether and just letting anyone who wants to come into this country do so completely free of restrictions, regardless of the number of arrivals!

We CAN and should have a big national input into refugee issues, including a considerably larger intake than we currently have, while having full control over our borders and bringing an end to this this terrible onshore (and fly-in) asylum-seeking mess.

Bruce, your whole tenet seems to be completely bonkers to me.

Sorry, but we SHOULD have every right to decide who comes into this country, and most definitely SHOULD be allowed to base this on character grounds.

For character grounds- there is absolutely no reason why an Australian must have their life put in danger because we let a mentally-unstable and extremely violent character force themselves on them because of the fact that THAT character's life would be in danger instead if they do not.

The priority of rights should always be the person to whom is being imposed upon (us), not the person doing the imposing, if that person only hurts the rights of the person they are imposing upon.

Let me provide some alternate scenarios:

If someone needed a kidney transplant and would die without one, should you be nominated to be FORCED to donate yours?

If a crazed group of criminal gang members were being chased by an enemy gang, and were banging on your door fearing for their life, and were screaming and threatening to kill you- and for good measure, set fire to your letter box- should you let them in?

Instead some people feel we should instead prioritize rights based on the squeakiest wheel, or to the highest bidder.

Tell me, if the people who set fire to the place (a rather extreme act even by rioting standards)- were indeed just inclined to violence, and they assault somebody when they get here- would their victim have been harmed for a good cause?

RexW,

I think you will find, if you research, that the quote you attribute to Barton was made by Alan Jones in 2007:

http://www.nationaltrust.com.au/mttf/treasuremessage.asp

who adapted it from the words of Theordore Roosevelt, which Jones says was from 1907, but other sources say 1919, after WW1.

LB

I am sure I am right but will check. I really would not like anyone to ever think that I believed Alan Jones ever said anything that was worth quoting. :)

LB Loveday,

I bow to your superior research capability and knowledge.

The speech itself does appear to have originated in the US.

The words are still of great importance, in my opinion and my comments on the value of Edmund Barton as an early polit5ical figure are valid.

Thanks LB.

Ludwiiiiig, maaaaate,
Your criticisms of Bruce’s piece seem a bit unfair.
‘So the minister should just completely not make any attempt to rein in those who started, promulgated or otherwise took significant part in the fracas, eh?’ No, Ludwig, this is not what Bruce was saying at all. Rather, that the handling of the fracas should have been done differently. Which is a fair observation.
And I think you may have missed the point about Howard’s famous ‘We will determine who comes here ...’ The literal sense of that sentence is of course unexceptional. Everyone agrees with the direct meaning. But what the dogs to whom Howard was whistling clearly understood by this euphemism was ‘We will stop the Asians, blacks and ragheads ...’
Bruce’s piece was not challenging the right of our government to control the borders at all. But to do so in accordance with international conventions. We should stop treating legal asylum seekers as criminals. We should treat those who arrive by boat the same as those who arrive by plane. The processing must be fair and swift. Where we must detain arrivals, the conditions must be humane. Children must never be gaoled.
Look, Australia does not have an unmanageable refugee or asylum seeker problem, courtesy of your impressive moat. We here in France can receive in a weekend the number you get in a year.
Of course it is in the interests of your shock jocks and some politicians to create the illusion of a problem. They should be told politely to go away.
See? Not really bonkers at all.

Sadly it seems the issues raised in my other thread of how this most recent refugee debate is going, has come true.

Even when the debate focuses specifically on a specific act by specific refugees, most people would seem to rather avoid it entirely, and instead divert the topic to the same 'refugee situation in general' topic- and we get to enjoy the same boring reruns since the 90s about
-definition of a refugee
-issue of plane vs boat arrival methods
-UN signatures
And other bits of information that completely avoid addressing the issue such as the implications of handling refugees that are both legitimate, but also a potential danger to the public whom is expected to accommodate them despite it.
Especially when that very context is what is happening at the moment.

Basically the elephant in the room.

Tough on Humanity, low on Geo-political intelligence. So much money, so much waste. Human Capital mis-spent at the cost of a poor accumalation in the field of Cultural Production.

As said here; "ASIO needs to be pulled into line. The intemperance of its decision making needs to be reformed. It is not good enough that an organisation with so many resources should take so long to obtain security clearances. In many cases illegal, as they are 'obtained' from the very authorities that the asylum seekers are fleeing. In any case, a person granted asylum does not need a security clearance; that is done as part of the refugee determination.

ASIO is double dipping with what appears to be the intention of slowing down the intake of refugees. The aim being to deter arrivals by it becoming known that long periods will be spent in detention with an outcome that is not assured; hence the desire to return asylum seekers to home countries on spurious information and analysis."

Yes we need a Global Solution but that ought not let us off the Hook.

http://www.miacat.com/

Bruce says: “A refugee is a refugee”

Yes, but few of our illegal boat arrivals are “refugees”. They are pure and simply economic migrants.

Their aim is to get into an affluent western nation –and they have unwitting accomplishes in people like Bruce.

Hearing Bruce talk about refugees I am reminded of the sophisticated western tourist who visits a market in Asia, is told there is a genuine antique on offer, haggles long and hard over it, and takes it home feeling very self satisfied. Only to find that one day while repositioning the antique the varnish has started to come off the base, and when he examines it more closely he finds a label “Made in XYZ factory, Shanghai”.

(The varnish coming off in the refugee caper would be the refugee returning home to the old country for R & R
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/21/15098766.html )

But there are two differences between the antique story buyer and the refugee story buyer:
1) Bruce doesn’t even bother to haggle, &
2) The good on offer: a genuine “refugee” wasn’t manufactured in a factory in Shanghai. It was concocted in a swat shop in Quettta, flown to Jakarta for last minute modifications, then shipped to OZ
http://www.smh.com.au/national/revealed-smuggler-arrested-over-gangs-plot-to-ship-afghans-here-20100711-105p8.html

Advocates can vilify:
--the AFP
" initial demonstrations being peaceful, it was only after the use of force, grossly excessive use of force, by the AFP, that the internees turned nasty – and who wouldn't"
--Naval personnel
You might remember the accusations that naval personnel were drunk at the time of the Christamas Island disaster ( to be fair, as far as I know, this was not a charge made by Bruce –but others of similar persuasion )
--Politicians
But apparently, like fairy tale good-guys, “asylum seekers” can do no wrong,

On a closing note, we are asked to believe that conditions on Christmas Island are Gulag like –but certain a little snippets undermine this:
“Locals say it had become common practice for detainees to jump the fence from the now-closed Aqua and Lilac compounds for a swim at the picturesque Hugh's Dale.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/christmas-island-shuts-up-shop-to-new-asylum-seekers/story-fn59niix-1226026375230

Dear SPQR,
‘Yes, but few of our illegal boat arrivals are “refugees”. They are pure and simply economic migrants.’
No, this is simply not true. And reading your post it is clear why you believe things that are not true. You are relying on The Toronto Sun and The Australian, two of the most notoriously unreliable publications in the English speaking world.
Fortunately information is available online from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and reputable academics in Australia and elsewhere.
These all confirm the validity of Bruce’s analysis.

Miacat:
"In any case, a person granted asylum does not need a security clearance; that is done as part of the refugee determination."
Could you clarify this? Because it seems you are implying that the refugee qualification overrides the possibility that THEY may be a risk to others.

Alan:
"‘Yes, but few of our illegal boat arrivals are “refugees”. They are pure and simply economic migrants.’
No, this is simply not true."
Actually SPQR does have a good point in quite a few cases. Although Australia is the closest safe country for many people from SE Asia and virtually their first stop-off; people from the Middle East are surrounded by alternative safe countries (with exception to Shia, Sufis who are surrounded by mostly anti-them nations), and actually settle in numerous safe countries for long periods while they find transport to Australia.
Thus they cease to be fleeing from danger, but fleeing from a safe, but less lucrative place to live than here.

Thanks for the response Alan Austin.

You wrote:

<< Your criticisms of Bruce’s piece seem a bit unfair. >>

I’ve reread the article and I can’t see any unfairness in my response.

<< 'So the minister should just completely not make any attempt to rein in those who started, promulgated or otherwise took significant part in the fracas, eh?’ No, Ludwig, this is not what Bruce was saying at all. Rather, that the handling of the fracas should have been done differently. >>

Yes, Bruce criticised actions taken over the riots. Far too critical in my view. But his desired response to the riots appears to have been nothing at all, but to have just let them go on until they had exhausted themselves, followed up by no punishment or even warning for anyone!

In the face of serious rioting, decisive action was called for, not a pussy-footing approach.

<< And I think you may have missed the point about Howard’s famous ‘We will determine who comes here ...’ The literal sense of that sentence is of course unexceptional….But what the dogs to whom Howard was whistling clearly understood by this euphemism was ‘We will stop the Asians, blacks and ragheads ...’

Well, if you want to read something into Howard’s statement that wasn’t there, go right ahead. It was simply a straightforward assertion, NOT a dog-whistle at all.

It really bothers me when we can’t express a view without being branded as racist, bigoted, anti-refugee or whatever, when there is NOTHING of the sort in the argument or statements that you are expressing. I’ve copped heaps of that on this forum over the last five years.

<< Bruce’s piece was not challenging the right of our government to control the borders at all. >>

Really? Well from what I can tell, he doesn’t have the slightest bit of concern about our national border security, ongoing asylum-seeker arrivals forever, or a greatly escalated rate of arrivals which would be spurred if we just let them move freely in our society and significantly shortened the average processing time.

More later (reached350wordlimit).

<< We should stop treating legal asylum seekers as criminals. >>

This is such an unfortunate statement Alan. Detention is necessary. Australia’s detention policy evolved from open centres to centres which asylum seekers were not supposed to leave, to centres with high walls and razor because a fair few of them did leave open centres and obfuscated the authorities.

We know that abscondment has been a real problem in countries without mandatory detention.

Putting people up in detention centres is NECESSARY. They are NOT being treated as criminals by being placed in these centres, or by arriving unannounced in the first place.

<< Children must never be gaoled. >>

Statements like this just don’t help your credibility, I’m afraid. Detention centres are not gaols, for goodness sake! And it is not straightforward that children are necessarily better off outside of them than being kept with their parents, guardians or the group of people that they travelled with and know, instead of being put somewhere totally alien to them, away from the people they know, no matter how much better we might think the conditions would be for them. I’d also think that the stress levels of parents and guardians would not be improved by the removal of their children.

<< Look, Australia does not have an unmanageable refugee or asylum seeker problem, courtesy of your impressive moat. >>

Yes! Our asylum seeker issue is not huge compared to some countries. It is not huge in terms of the number of people that are involved, but it is pretty huge in terms of the political and social impact that it has had and continues to have....and the expense!

So we really should decisively end onshore asylum seeking (and the fly-in bit), and then compensate, or actually well and truly overcompensate it by way of considerably increasing our refugee input overseas and accommodating a few thousand more refugees per annum than we currently are.

[No, I just can’t fit this post into 350 words] Continued…

I just don’t get it Alan – why are people of yours and Bruce’s persuasion so hung up on allowing a small number of asylum seekers to continue to come here on leaky boats and commercial airlines, and apparently not interested in boosting our refugee intake through our formal immigration programs and boosting our international aid directed at refugee issues?

THAT’S what really counts isn’t it?

So, let’s STOP the boats and improve our formal refugee assistance programs!

Dear Alan Austin,
You have just outed yourself as a totally unreliable witness.

1)The Toronto Sun was citing a Canadian govt survey , and

2)The other report was from …wait for …The Sydney Morning Herald!,
NOT The Australian . Clearly you didn’t even bother to read either–the contents were too challenging, eh ?

If you can show either of the above reports were fabricated –please feel free to present your evidence.

Dear SPQR,
My response to you was intended somewhat more whimsically than you seem to have received it. Sorry if I came across as more earnest than intended.
But seeing as you have raised the matter of reliability, perhaps you can advise us, regarding the Toronto Sun article:
It starts: ‘A secret government survey reveals the majority of successful Tamil refugees travel back to Sri Lanka ...’
Hmmm. ‘Secret government survey’. This could be serious.
But this reads to me like a fabrication in the style of the ‘Aliens abducted my Grandma’ for which The Toronto Sun is famous.
But if you are right and I am wrong, SPQR, can you tell us the title of the secret government report? Which government department commissioned it? Who or what office authored it? Can you give as an actual quote from the report? Or just the general drift? If the report was a survey, how many thousand people were surveyed? Or was it just a token survey of four or five hundred hand-picked people?
The article then quotes James Bissett, who I respect. What was his connection with the report? None?
SPQR, ‘A secret government survey reveals …’ is usually code in newspapers in the style of Murdoch’s tabloids for ‘We want to sell papers so we are making up something scary.’
So get back to us as soon as you can, to verify this ‘report’. (And don’t spend too much time on the Sunshine Girl in the sports section.)
Then will be very happy to deal with the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian in due course.
Cheers, AA

Dear Alan Austin,
I detect a curious double standard here:
If one jumps off a boat and says: “I have no ID, no past, no evidence (though, I do have a mobile phone!) but hey, take my word for it I’m asylum seeker” , you ( and Bruce) respond “Come hither poor fellow …go straight to Centre Link, collect $500”.

However, if one reports there is something shonky about asylum seeker claims, as research & personal experience show most return to their old countries on R&R (or worse).You suddenly become a “I need solid proof” aficionado.
i)First shooting the messenger (even before you had read the article!) “the most notoriously unreliable publication in the English speaking world” (and in the process wounding the wrong newspaper LOL)
ii)Then you start playing the I’ve got a 1001 questions game :unless you (SPQR) can answer all my questions about the source, then I must be right and you must be wrong .

No, it doesn’t work that way Alan .
If indeed “secret government survey” “is usually code [for] …we are making something up” then someone had better break the news to Julian Assange & Wikileaks.
And if the Toronto Sun was the only source perhaps we could excuse your ignorance.
But as it turns out there’s corroborating testimony ----volumes of it.
1) We’ll start with James Bisset “ who (you) respect “
http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/background/research/refugees/stop-bogus-refugees-before-they-get-in-2007-by-james-bissett/
It seems James is very concerned that large numbers of bogus “refugees” are entering Canada

2) Then we have this
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1230/A-US-pipeline-for-jihad-in-Somalia
Somalis’ having secured a meal-ticket in the US, return to fight for Al Shabab
( clearly they weren’t attracted to the US by its liberal ideals!)
And, in case you think it wouldn’t happen here –here’s the OZ chapter.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/somalia-jihad-drive-probed/story-e6frg6of-1111115033793

3 And here’s what Indian sources say:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/beware-of-asylum-seekers-bearing-tales-of-woe/story-e6frg6zo-1225850659899

What does all this indicate?
Most of the “I am fleeing for my life” stories are phoney ( right up there with the alien adduction stories, which you seem so familiar with!)
The real driving force: to get into an affluent western country.

So um, Alan, old maaaaaaaaate...

Do we have a discussion happening here or have you conceded that I am right and you are woefully off-track??

Dear SPQR,
Thanks for your further input on this.
Let’s deal with these matters one at a time, shall we? Let’s start with the first matter you raised: ‘Yes, but few of our illegal boat arrivals are “refugees”. They are pure and simply economic migrants.’
I responded ‘No, this is simply not true’ and referred you to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and academics in Australia and elsewhere.
Have you checked any of these, SPQR? Do you dispute their reports?
Specifically, do you dispute the recent summary of departmental data by the Parliamentary Library, that: “during the Rudd Government approximately 90–95 per cent of assessments completed on Christmas Island resulted in protection visas being granted. For example, of the 1254 claims assessed on Christmas Island between 1 July 2009 and 31 January 2010, only 110 people were assessed as not being refugees. These figures suggest that 1144 (approximately 91 per cent) of those claims were successful.”
I have actually taken the time to read all your references, SPQR – all six of them. None of them supports your claim.
Are you prepared now to concede that your initial claim was a bit over the top, and that between 90 and 95 per cent of asylum seekers are in fact genuine refugees?
Once this is sorted I will be happy to discuss the matter I raised of shonky journalism in The Toronto Sun and The Australian and any of the subsequent matters you have raised.
Cheers, AA

Dear Ludwig,
Yes, very happy to continue the discussion. And relieved it is a discussion, not a debate. You would be a formidable opponent.
There is actually little difference between us, I believe, on re-reading the preceding.
We are certainly in furious agreement about the fundamental cause of this unholy mess – that our governments and the electorate – are “apparently not interested in boosting our refugee intake through our formal immigration programs and boosting our international aid directed at refugee issues.” Absolutely!
The only quibble I had with your original post was that you seemed to interpret Bruce’s criticisms of the way the riots were handled as him supporting no action against the rioters at all.
Bruce can speak for himself (Bruce, are you there, Bruce?) but I felt there may be other possibilities. I then suggested reforms to the current system, but perhaps rather clumsily.
The matter of Howard’s dog whistling is entirely a matter of opinion, not hard fact, so we will probably have to accept we have different opinions. In any event, it is an aside.
No-one ever to my knowledge has ever advocated open borders – not Labor, not the Greens, not Bruce Haigh, not me, not anyone I have ever heard. So everyone endorses the overt meaning of Howard’s 2001 election slogan.
My ‘treated like criminals’ comment was a reference to the conditions in the detention centres, not to the concept of detention itself. We really do have overcrowding problems now, as a result of processing taking far too long, which lead to verifiable mental health issues. And, as affirmed in my recent reply to the young Roman senator, the overwhelming majority of these people are here legally and are genuine refugees.
Now, Ludwig, maaaaate, tell me where we disagree …
Cheers, AA

Thanks for that Alan. I am surprised that we seem to be very largely in agreement, given the preceding. Good stuff.

So, how could asylum seekers be treated more humanely, without detention and with shorter processing times, without spurring a big increase in the rate of arrivals, or at least promulgating the ongoing rate of arrivals with no end in sight?

I have no doubt that Rudd’s foolish actions in weakening border protection policy are the cause of this mess and that the arguments that push factors are the cause are spurious. Huge push factors have always been there.

So we really do risk there being a major blow-out in the arrival rate if we further weaken the disincentives. And if that were to happen, the resolve of the Australian people and their government would harden and then the people caught in the middle would be treated much less accommodatingly than the current and recent arrivals.

As much as I would like us to treat all arrivals as humanely as possible, we need to be very careful about upholding a strong deterrence factor.

You wrote:

<< We really do have overcrowding problems now, as a result of processing taking far too long >>

I disagree. We have overcrowding because of Rudd’s folly and Gillard’s inability to fit it.

I really don’t think that our authorities should be pressured into speeding up processing, with the risk of highly undesirable people being accepted as refuges because their background checks couldn’t be completed within a certain timeframe or whatever. Processing needs to be rigorous, and quite frankly I think that our refugee determinism needs to be somewhat tighter so that a smaller portion of applicants receive asylum.

As much as I don’t want detention and processing to be part of the deterrence factor, it inescapably is, and we need to be very careful about that.

Cheers mate.

Pffft.. that should have read:

< Gillard's inability to FIX it. >

|:>\

Dear Alan Austin,
Now I can see where you are going wrong -- you are equating their approval with their bona fides.
“during the Rudd Government approximately 90–95 per cent of assessments completed on Christmas Island resulted in protection visas being granted”

Sorry Alan, there is no such relationship -– all their approval shows is they had learnt their lines sufficiently well enough to fool our processors –who, let's be honest , would have bugger all knowledge of most the villages these people will claim to have come from.

Much better gauges are:
1)Whether or not they return to their (feared) country of origin.
2)Whether their attraction to our shores are our liberal democratic values --or simply a desire to upgrade their standard of living
And we can see that most fail these shibboleths.

You say you have read all six of my references and none of them supported my claims –then you had better re-read them ‘cause you missed:
--Somalis granted refugee status in the USA & OZ returning to fight –for AL Shabab ( for God sake!) in Somalia
-- Renowned Indian academics telling you that there was no need for Tamils to flee to the West ( and I recall in a previous post how enamoured you were with “ reputable academics” !)
--James Bissett testifying that large numbers of bogus “refugees” were entering and staying in Canada, even after being rejected.

And I haven’t even begun to tell you about the refugee bombers in Europe and OZ yet!

Cheer

Stop it SPQR. You are humiliating yourself. I have read ALL your ‘much better gauges’ and they are hopelessly weak.
First ... you referred to “Somalis granted refugee status in the USA & OZ returning to fight –for AL Shabab ( for God sake!) in Somalia”
Well, I checked this ... and your article in the Christian Science Monitor is all about Somali-Americans BORN IN THE USA! It is NOT about asylum seekers in Australia. Similarly, the article in The Australian is NOT about asylum seekers. It doesn’t say how the young Somali men arrived here or where they were born. Most Somalis came to Australia under our Humanitarian Program – NOT asylum seekers. You should be ashamed of yourself, SP.
Then ... you referred to “Renowned Indian academics telling you that there was no need for Tamils to flee to the West ...” But Australia stopped receiving asylum seekers from Sri Lanka in April LAST YEAR. They are all sent back. Hardly any arrive now. Didn’t you know this, SP?
Then ... you say “James Bissett testifying that large numbers of bogus “refugees” were entering and staying in Canada, even after being rejected.”
Canada, SP. C A N A D A. They have a completely different system to deal with asylum seekers there. To say it happens in Canada so it must be happening here is just so illogical.
You should admit that your initial accusation was “a bit over the top”, as Alan gently suggests. Others may say you are guilty of slander. If you don’t you will have no credibility at all.

Sunflower,
Thank you for your concerns, however I am more than willing to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous advocates in my endeavor to expose rorts, and there are few rorts as big and as lucrative as the asylum seeker caper.

Firstly, you talk of “Humanitarian Program”. Someone notable once said: “A rose by any other name is still a rose” –that has dual relevance here!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/somalia-jihad-drive-probed/story-e6frg6of-1111115033793

Secondly, you say we stopped receiving asylum seekers from Sri Lanka last April.
Two responses:
i) In view of what my linked report says , we should never had begun receiving them. It was purely a ploy to gain residency in an affluent western nation.
ii) You need to check your facts –though, I note your delicate choice of words “from Sri Lanka”, here’s a group that come to us much later ( via Indonesia!) “The Federal Government finally agreed to take them last year and seven arrived in Australia in December.” Then you did say "from Sri Lanka"!
http://www.news.com.au/national/ten-oceanic-viking-tamils-remain-stranded/story-e6frfkw0-1226009564065

Thirdly, you say that because such rorts happen in Canada does not mean they also happen in OZ –sound logic -- poor understand of human nature .Australia has rorts of its own

Cheers, Sunflower/Briar

Good morning Ludwig,
Three quick responses.
One. Your opening question is exactly the nub: “How could asylum seekers be treated more humanely, without detention and with shorter processing times, without spurring a big increase in the rate of arrivals ..?”
Having a lot of respect for Chris Sidoti, we could ponder his proposals from some years ago now: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1744&page=0
But we certainly need to make detention more humane. The damage being done to innocent people, including young children, is well-documented.
The other risk inherent in oppressive detention was referred to here yesterday in another article: “No law and order Renaissance for New South Wales.”
Although on another topic (prisons) it included a quote from US intelligence via WikiLeaks reporting on detention here in France: "It is often the shock of prison, detailed the RG report, that transforms petty criminals into Islamic extremists". (RG = Renseignement Generaux, France’s ASIO.)
Number two. “So we really do risk there being a major blow-out in the arrival rate if we further weaken the disincentives.” Yes, I agree, but not with the same level of anxiety as many Australians living in Australia.
This is because (a) we get vastly more asylum seekers here in France than you do, yet this has no impact whatsoever on anyone’s daily life. So how little is Australia’s puny trickle likely to impact anyone? (b) you will only ever get a trickle because your land is girt by a very large and dangerous sea. (c) you are the best-placed nation in the world to accept refugees and asylum seekers. I heard somewhere that your land abounds in nature's gifts of beauty rich and rare. And for those who come across the seas you have boundless plains to share. (d) Australia received many more Indochinese refugees in the 1970s/80s which you resettled happily enough.
Number three. “As much as I don’t want detention and processing to be part of the deterrence factor, it inescapably is, and we need to be very careful about that.” Absolutely, Ludwig. Agree entirely.
Cheers, AA

Alan, in response to Chris Sidoti’s article; of course there is a better way to deal with asylum seekers than mandatory and indefinite detention….IF we just entirely overlook the deterrence factor! Sidoti appears to have not even thought of this, or the fact that with the sort of asylum-seeker treatment that he is advocating, we would DEFINITELY have seen a big escalation in arrivals, and then a high rate in an ongoing manner, instead of the near-termination of onshore asylum seeking that we saw under Howard.

You wrote:

<< you will only ever get a trickle because your land is girt by a very large and dangerous sea >>

Not too sure about that. If Australia was seen to be a really soft touch, asylum seekers would head this way in great numbers

<< …you are the best-placed nation in the world to accept refugees and asylum seekers. I heard somewhere that your land abounds in nature's gifts of beauty rich and rare. And for those who come across the seas you have boundless plains to share. >>

Not so. Australia is predominantly of low and erratic rainfall and low soil fertility. I would strongly argue that we are close to a sustainable population and that we should NOT be entertaining a large immigration program.

We should boost the numbers of refugees that we bring in, from the current ~13 600 pa to perhaps 25 000. But this should be within an immigration program that is wound right back to net zero. This means that the refugees would be the major component of an annual immigration intake in the order of 30 000.

<< Australia received many more Indochinese refugees in the 1970s/80s which you resettled happily enough. >>

Yes, without too much friction. But that was through our formal immigration program.

I wrote:

< I would strongly argue that we are close to a sustainable population and that we should NOT be entertaining a large immigration program. >

Perhaps I should have said:

I would strongly argue that we have a population that is close to the upper limit of potential sustainability, but which certainly isn’t with a lifestyle and resource consumption rate anything like we now have, and that in conjunction with a much more renewable and less profligate approach to resource usage, we should be heading directly towards a stable population, for which by far the largest factor, and the easiest to address, is the large-scale reduction of immigration.

Hmmm, that’s mouthful of a sentence. But after you’ve read it 5 or so times, I think you should get my drift!! ( :>/