Bruce,

All those coming by air are also detained, and are also returned in greater numbers.

As far as I know there aren't any being killed coming by air.

Honestly Bruce, grow up. We don't want people selecting themselves and coming here by boat or by air. We want to choose the ones who come to this country. There are plenty of refugee camps around the world from which to choose. That is it.

A clear majority of Australians are against boat people in particular. That is why the coalition has the support of the majority of voters on this issue. That doesn't make us terrible people. We'll take a set number of refugees each year, no problem. We just want to select the ones who come ourselves.

Mr. Haigh, I will give you a reason.

The so called boat people have entered into a criminal conspiracy by paying the people smugglers some $10,000, as well as destroying their travel documents, in order to circumvent the immigration laws of Australia.

Australian Immigration has developed a mindset image of the "Type" of migrant they wish to accept.
Desperate Refugees & Asylum Seekers who are fleeing violence and persecution, not having the time or means to obtain travel documents and visas, do not fit the "Type"

Bruce,
You were a former diplomat or public servant, so you are not ignorant.

The may be some reason for Maracas1 to be ignorant but not you. You know as well as anyone that those that arrive by air are sent back when their claims are not successful, which is most. The ones arriving by boat destroy their papers so we cannot send them back as we cannot verify their claims or particulars.

They got here by fraud, bribery and deceit and are conning us, that is why they do not receive compassion from most Aussies. We do not like gate crashers and con artists.

You know all this and now you are trying to con us. You discredit yourself.

maracas1 seems to have a point: if we select who comes here, then they have to have a certain 'fit'. and if they don't fit easily, we can get more selective. maybe the odd dictation test or two.

but as for people coming here by air, isn't that how most of the torturers and war criminals from Chile, Iraq and Nazilands came here in the first place? They fit in so perfectly!
Ironic in a nation born from the so-called criminal classes of Britain and Ireland.

Bruce,
You were a former diplomat or public servant, so you are not ignorant.
Banjo,
Just think this bloke would have had a lot to do with training those who are now doing this kind of work. He's obviously got his huge public service pension, so why doesn't he just leave the scene ?

Bruce - just to add to the chorus of posters pointing out the blindingly obvious, which you've missed.

The refugees arriving by boat are, in effect, queue jumpers. The Government has quotas for the number of refugees it can accept. So if we accept the boat people that does not mean more refugees come to Aus, it means that refugees elsewhere miss out. The quotas can only be altered by Parliament.

There is no discrimination for or against those who come by air except that those who come by air come singly, not in boatloads, and are more likely to have papers that prove or disprove their stories, as other posters have noted.

The government literally has no choice but to institute the Malaysia strategy or something like that. They cannot be seen to encourage the people smuggling trade with its risky practices, particularly as we end up with the same number of refugees no matter what happens.

I get tired of these "boat vs plane" arguments.
I would imagine that the simple answer is for most people that we don't want anybody coming in via any channels at all and instead sent back- if they are the same caliber as Hilali and the Skafs; Therefore, if any fundamentalists were coming in by planes, we'd want them detained and deported just as much as any fundamentalists that arrive by boat. Simple.

But no- that's not the answer the asker wants to hear- in fact, in most cases the asker didn't really want to do anything else but obfuscate the issue by riding on the label "boat people" which is not even used by anybody outside the media.

Instead of addressing the issue directly, some people would rather joyride the spin even further away from the point of the issue, and expect everybody to follow them.
My solution- every person entering the country gets screened initially- a simple Q and A to determine if that person has comparable values to the average Australian (at least values consideration and respect for others, morals, secularism and the civil rights we provide)- if they do, they get processed in the community- if not, they are deported immediately.

I thought it was a good article, and asked a lot of good questions.
What about some answers? What is Bruce Haigh's solution to the problem?
Training refugees instead of importing already skilled people makes sense, even if it is more expensive, but shouldn't we train our own people first?
It seems to me, the crux of the problem is the length of time it takes to process these people. Even for Australian bureaucrats, several years seems a tad excessive.
Perhaps we should get the tax office handle the process...
I have to admit, I'm inclined towards the King's solution.

Could the handwringing and wailing be any worse?

Bruce,

Why is it that you are devoting your energies to people who have 10 to 20 thousand dollars to get into this country illegally? And not on the millions who don't, and are stuck in abject poverty across the globe? Why is it that these people, who pay criminals to deliberately try and avoid our customs and immigration vessels, and destroy their identity cards to make returning them more difficult, are those you choose to bestow your sympathy on? And not on those in refugee camps across the world who want to come to Australia and have applied and been assessed as refugees?

With Australia'r refugee intake set at roughly 13,000 , and with over 6000 refugees arrived by boat this year (with an eventual acceptance rate of over 90%), it its obvious that without a change in course, the majority of refugees we take in the near future will be those who arrived illegally.

It just beggars belief that anyone who claims to have an interest in social justice could support such an obviously flawed system. Yet they do. And why? Because the current progressive left is totally absorbed by gesture politics.

Instead of building support for the acceptance of more genuine refugees, they have instead waged a campaign of antagonism towards those who rightly feel that the continued illegal arrival by boat is NOT a desirable outcome.

They refuse to see that the perverse incentive that they have created has led to the current sham that our immigration policy has become. It has led to the most important factors in getting permanent residence, being

1) whether you have the money, and
2) the disregard for the law, and
3) the willingness to risk your own life, your families, and those of Naval/Coast guard/Customs personell

Crazy.

Well, I thoroughly enjoyed the article. I have saved a copy to use in class when discussing emotive language and empty rhetoric. It contains many emotive terms, few backed by any hard evidence. Take the first couple of lines for example:

1) The word 'persecute' denotes a system of mistreatment of one group by another. It has connotations of the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing, Christians thrown to lions, inquisitions, Moors driven out of Spain. By denotation there is an argument for its accuracy; by connotation, it is plain misleading.

2) Our PM is behaving in a 'vindictive' manner. How so? As a very public figure, Bruce could have given at least one example of a vindictive speech or act.

3) Our opposition leader is 'erratic'. As above. Especially when he is accused of 'racist bile'. A link would suffice; a quote would be even better.

4) Apparently we 'bully and beat' refugees who arrive by boat. News to me. Do we do that before or after they sit on the roof to get a better view of their detention centre burning? Or have I got it all wrong? Are WE burning the centres with them inside?

5) Secular Australia is a 'cesspit' and our representatives are 'morally bereft'. Well, he may have a case for the latter - but he's too lazy to build one.

6) The bizarre rant with our national anthem as a motif is just that ... a bizarre and incoherent rant.

7) John Howard's mysterious charter for social engineering: can I please have a copy?

To be perfectly honest, some of our more obtuse regular posters on here put together much more coherent arguments. Every one of my Year 8 students could, too.

The real question that Bruce conveniently ignores is why are so many who can't afford a people smuggler discrimminated against as they wait to come here legally. I know some of my friends relatives are in this category and they don't understand how our Government could be so gullible or deceitful in order to appease the UN.

Indeed Otokonoko, there's nothing short of a treasure trove of silliness in Bruce's rant.

And on the note of Secular Australia being a 'cesspit' (to which religious leaders are apparently above according to Bruce);
I must say I find it amusing, and would imagine it alone says a lot about Bruce and his views.

Makes you wonder why he threw it in
(well, I know why *I* would mention a secular community into a refugee debate- but wonder how Bruce sees it (aside from disgust)).

Why should we ignore Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders, instead throwing billions at providing safe, well-equipped, above-standard housing for illegal immigrants (who have committed a criminal offense by merely arriving)? Everyone who arrives illegally should be deported, 'nough said.

I have zero time for the enormous disparity between the spending on illegal immigrants and Indigenous Australian's. The second deserve help (by virtue of being here legally, if nothing else), while the others do not. By jumping the queue they have prevented other, more deserving, potential immigrants (often also refugees) from coming here legally. While we continue to mollycoddle them, they'll keep coming.