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.