What a total mess – ethically, practically, politically and legally.

Net result

Refugees and asylum seekers transferred from Malaysia to Australia – 6,000
Refugees and asylum seekers transferred from Australia to Malaysia – 0
Net cost to Australian taxpayers - $XX million
Refugees in limbo awaiting processing - XX,XXX

I didn’t think it was possible to make Howard’s pacific solution look good. But by comparison, it does.

Apparently this convoluted mess was the easier solution than an initial character assessment of arrivals, and the immediate deportation of those who fell short of safe standards, and THEN the remainders get their refugee status itself determined in the community.

This article does paint an interesting slant to Malcolm Fraser (who was in power at this time)- that seems to project that Vietnamese people fleeing from a war involving an economic system he despises, aren't quite as worthy of his sympathies as extremist religious nutjobs in the Middle East.

This issue is out of control. At some point, it’s worth asking if there’s ANY conceivable approach to the problem that could survive the current overheated environment.

On the positive side, LEGAL immigration remains (relatively) uncontroversial. The argument that New Chums steal Aussie jobs isn’t fashionable. Unemployment’s low. Governments, not immigrants, cop blame for urban congestion owing to to poor planning and neglect of infrastructure. Australia’s population density is VERY low; if we lived primarily in small towns like Europeans and Yanks, we notice how empty this continent really is.

Another positive is demographics. Baby-boomers are retiring, we don’t produce enough children, hence migration is still welcome; the more taxpayers, the better -- if they’re work-ready. There’s lots of room, and jobs, in the Regions.

And another positive: we’re genuinely multicultural. Australians mislike small pockets of unassimilated migrants, but don’t mind ‘foreign‘ neighbours or co-workers. For a while there (~2004/7), our per-capita humanitarian immigration intake was second in the world after Canada’s, with no complaints.

On the down side, Australians don’t like ‘queue-jumpers’. ‘Procedural fairness’ means one thing to lawyers, something altogether different to Jane and Joe Average. Those spending years in UNHCR refugee camps elicit sympathy; those who can afford to self-select are considered sus.

Another down: ~7,000 boat people since ’08 isn’t a large number, but it’s growing. Australians see the EU dealing with tens of thousands, the US with hundreds of thousands, and wonder if it could happen here. It could. Even people-smugglers follow rules: they ship to Christmas Island, though they could beach their cargo anywhere between Broome and Weipa.

A zone of agreement wide enough to sustain a coherent national policy on illegal immigration won’t be based on ‘international obligations’. Focus on UN-vetted refugees could be uncontroversial, especially if SOME were skilled. Detention and TPVs are needed as proof that ‘WE decide...’ but not across the board. Instead of trying to bribe Malaysia, we could negotiate to trade 100 illegals/month to UNHCR camps overseas in exchange for 500 genuine refugees who’ve waited years. Or...?

Alternatively, Donkeygod- Australians simply don't like Islamist extremists.
It would explain quite well why immigration and refugees are so much more a contentious issue now, than in the past.

Some people need to do a reality check –wake-up and smell the roses, rather than the opium poppies.

It’s not just about the poor Hazara or the sweet and cuddly Chin. Both of which are merely the latest flavour of the month with activists.

Our justice/review system generous interpretation of the Refugee Convention:

“The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated OR UNCONTROBLE BY THE AUTHROITIES of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution”

Gives practically every ethnic or religious group in south Asia (& beyond) cause to make a valid case for asylum.

The main limiting factor is the supply of leaky boats in Indonesia.

Those who think that letting thousands, or even hundreds of thousands in are solving the worlds problem are having themselves on. Or else, they’re suffering from the same lurgy that afflicts certain celebrities who think that by adopting one child of each colour they are being noble and enlightened.

Donkeygod,

Mass migration is controversial with a lot of us, whether it is facilitated by billionaire-friendly politicians or by misguided leftists who are effectively asking for open borders for anyone claiming to be a refugee. It is extremely difficult to deport failed asylum seekers, especially if they have destroyed their travel documents, as this gives the home country an excuse not to cooperate. See these Home Office figures from the UK

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108

Australia does indeed have a very low population density. That is because it is mostly desert. Only about 6% is arable land, mostly of pretty marginal quality. Unlike Europe or North America, soils haven't been renewed by glaciation or mountain building, apart from a few small areas over old volcanic hotspots. There are also serious issues with the amount and reliability of fresh water. That is why our government has been buying back water from farmers and spending billions on desalination plants for coastal cities. See these maps from Dr. Chris Watson of the CSIRO

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

We export about 60% of the grain that we grow in an average year and a lot less in a drought year, but this production is very dependent on fossils fuels, phosphate rock, and other inputs that are becoming scarcer and more expensive. If we also take a hit from climate change, we might be struggling to feed the people we have already.

Unemployment is not as rosy as you claim, as it is calculated by an extremely restrictive method, counting someone who has worked one hour in a week as employed. The Australia Institute has calculated that more honest methods would give us 14.3% unemployment, and 20.5% if we include the underemployed who want more hours.

"Poor planning" occurs because every new migrant requires $200,000 to $400,000 in infrastructure immediately, according to federal MP Kelvin Thomson, mostly from the public purse. It is likely to be many years before they have contributed enough to pay for it. Since the public would baulk at the necessary tax increase, the politicians have had little choice but to let infrastructure and public services deteriorate.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2011/32.html

..

Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff M106 of 2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32 (31 August 2011)

..

ORDER(s)

Matter No M70/2011

Declare that the declaration made by the "Instrument of Declaration of Malaysia as a Declared Country under subsection 198A(3) of the Migration Act 1958" dated 25 July 2011 was made without power and is invalid.
The first defendant, whether by his officers or otherwise howsoever, is restrained from taking the plaintiff from Australia to Malaysia.
The defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings to date before Hayne J and the Full Court.

Matter No M106/2011

Declare that the declaration made by the "Instrument of Declaration of Malaysia as a Declared Country under subsection 198A(3) of the Migration Act 1958" dated 25 July 2011 was made without power and is invalid.
The first defendant, whether by his officers or otherwise howsoever, is restrained from taking the plaintiff from Australia to Malaysia.
The first defendant, whether by his officers or otherwise howsoever, is restrained from taking the plaintiff from Australia without there being a consent in writing of the Minister given under s 6A(1) of the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (Cth).
The defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings to date before Hayne J and the Full Court.

..

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 198A
Offshore entry person may be taken to a declared country

(1) An officer may take an offshore entry person from Australia to a country in respect of which a declaration is in force under subsection (3).

..

(3) The Minister may:

(a) declare in writing that a specified country:

(i) provides access, for persons seeking asylum, to effective procedures for assessing their need for protection; and

(ii) provides protection for persons seeking asylum, pending determination of their refugee status; and

(iii) provides protection to persons who are given refugee status, pending their voluntary repatriation to their country of origin or resettlement in another country; and

(iv) meets relevant human rights standards in providing that protection;

I don’t want to disagree with Divergence, but I’m a bit more optimistic.

I disagree with the estimate of ‘arable’ land at 6%. Soils in the American Southwest are comparable to much of Australia: wretched desert when dry, surprisingly productive when irrigated. That’s not impossible here; the infrastructure which supplies water to Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Phoenix, San Diego and Los Angeles can be replicated here; we haven’t really begun to use our capacity to produce food. The Top End is pretty wet. Not that we’d want to replicate Southern California in outback Queensland and the Kimberly, but it’s just not true that our dry continent is anywhere near full ... if we’re creative.

You’re right, unemployment is uncomfortable at the moment ... but it’s still bloody good by comparison with our trading partners. Agribusiness is desperate for workers; it’s limiting our agricultural productivity. We’re going to be bringing in skilled workers from all over Europe and the USA for to build planned resource extraction infrastructure, and they’ll drive demand for services. The infrastructure they’ll require (homes, shops, roads, etc.) had BETTER not be built by government; private investment is available to meet anticipated demand, provided government doesn’t get in the way.

Have to disagree with King Hazza. Islamist extremists don’t get here via people-smugglers; why bother, when you can get here legally? We have a few areas where middle-eastern migrants haven’t yet integrated very well, but not many. I don’t see politics or religion as particularly relevant to Australia’s disquiet over illegal immigration.

Rather, I suspect that our collective foresight predicts big trouble ahead if we prove unable to deal with illegal arrivals. Those who arrive by plane have passports and visas, and sending them home if they overstay or misbehave is easy as. The real problem is that, if you apply for asylum overseas through proper channels, your chances of legal migration are very, very low. Whereas if you arrive by boat, the odds are 85%+ you’ll get citizenship for yourself and your rellies. Now THAT’s perverse, and fair-minded people are justifiably concerned.

Donkeygod, you have misread my post;

Just because people don't come here with the explicit motive to conduct an attack- doesn't mean they're not extremists who would pose a potential danger when their religious sensibilities are inevitably offended by this 'immoral' secular society they wanted to move into.
And that includes people who come as refugees.

Donkeygod,

The idea of turning rivers inland and the like to make the interior of Australia green and fertile is a myth. See

http://www.wentworthgroup.org/docs/Can_We_Myth_Proof_Australia.pdf

Even if you could deal with the problems of low soil fertility identified in those CSIRO maps I linked to, where would you get the water? Where would you get the enormous energy required to pump it inland? How would you deal with the ferocious evaporation rates? How would you store the water in the large parts of the country that are very flat and unsuitable for dam building? If it is so easy to make deserts fertile, why haven't they done it with the Sahara or the deserts in western China? Supplying nutrients is also likely to be a serious issue in the future. See the following graph for trends in the world market price of phosphate, an absolutely irreplaceable nutrient for plant growth which is particularly scarce in Australian soils

http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/phosphate_rock.html

Only about 220,000 people work in mining. Most migrants end up in the capital cities, where they are employed to build houses and provide people services for more and more people - a great Ponzi scheme while it lasts. The 2006 Productivity Commission report modelled the effects of a doubling of skilled migration, the best case for population growth, as the migrants have already been raised, educated, and trained at someone else's expense. They found a net per capita economic benefit of less than $400 per person, mostly distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves. They didn't attempt to include negative effects from crowding, overstretched infrastructure and public services, loss of amenity and open space, etc.

Finally, if people listen to me and I am wrong, we take an economic hit, but we can always increase the population later. If they listen to you and you are wrong, it means disaster, possibly even a full on societal collapse.