Oh cry me a river .... In 'detention' all physical needs are met, there is no danger present bar to each other (and that's such a low risk because they are all such nice honest moral upstanding folk) and if they are genuine, haven't destroyed all evidence of ID, their claims will be processed within reasonable time.

And when is a "Child" not a child? When HE (I know of not a single unaccompanied female minor in detention but do correct me if such an individual exists) is obviously in very late or post puberty and has no reliable evidence to back his claims about age.

A pox on the Labor idiots who changed the legislation and opened the door for this disgusting trade to resume.

Those waiting to come here legally are really the ones who have had their human rights robbed from them. The queue jumpers have been smart enough to see that risking the lives of their kids in most cases is worth it. On top of this paying people smugglers and destroying their own documentation are small prices to pay to get all the Australian taxpayer benefits. If you have relatives waiting to come here you might be well advised to tell them to rip up their documents and catch the Bali express.

So what do you suggest ? Separate the kids from their parents ?
No ?
Just let the parents out as well !

Which rain shower did you come down in ?

Jo, I notice that you don't make any reference to the fact that most of the asylum seekers arriving by unauthorised boats have taken a decision to destroy all of their identifying documentation.

That action means that it is very difficult for Australian authorities to establish just who these people are, where they come from, and even how old they are. That dramatically increases the cost and time required to establish those basic facts. Contrast that with those who arrive by air, who simply can't come into the country without passports and other documentation.

What do you suggest we do with these unknown queue-jumpers? Release them into the community? Really?

Its all very well having a bleeding heart towards parents that expose their kids to danger, throw away their documents, effectively committing fraud in their attempts to get into Australia. Don't the parents have some responsibility in all this?

And what about the legitimate refugees in refugee camps around the world who are unable to get into Australia because their places have been given to the queue-jumpers?

It just shows how low our educational standards have fallen if people like Jo Coghlan can slip under the radar & distribute nonsensical crap. She'd be much better off if she wrote about those who create the problems she blames us for. Why not go & join the Taliban et al & talk them out of causing this misery. Why not publish her stuff in those countries ? Why always criticise those at the end of the trail instead of those who start it ?

I know of no individual in mandatory detention for twenty years? Which the patently misleading headlines seem to suggest?
We must retain the right of all other sovereign nations, to make and enforce our own rules and regulations!
We already have examples of Pakistanis and others, claiming to be displaced Afghans and others, in order to obtain refugee status? Surely we must keep these fraudsters under lock and key, until their identities and claims are completely validated or disproved.
It wasn't Labour who created this queue; or its unavoidable duration. But rather the entirely recalcitrant opposition, which killed offshore processing by refusing to pass the only legislation on the table, that would have achieved that.
The Malaysian solution may not have been everyone's cup of tea, but at least it didn't include automatic mandatory detention!
While one can agree to shorter mandated detention, it still needs to be long enough to allow routine health and properly validated identity checks.
Even then, no automatic family migration outcomes should be able to progress until or unless citizenship is formerly acquired. Furthermore, successful applicants ought to be obligated to live and work in rural and regional Australia, rather than ethnic ghettoes inside already over populated capital cities.
I see that there is a proposal already on the table to allow intending asylum seekers to be released into the custody of paid sponsoring families or entities, who then will become entirely responsible for all health, employment and mandated compliance outcomes?
So, the author's knowledge needs some serious updating?
Moreover, we simply must return claimants, who are found to be carrying incurable transmissible diseases, like say, cerebral malaria or hugely mutated HIV, which is no longer able to be treated by any conventional means and already a problem overseas?
Sorry, but normal quarantine outcomes must still apply and or can't ever be eased or disregarded, least we import a potential population threatening epidemic!
When medical science has progressed to the point, where we can safely and routinely cure these and other similar medical problems, these outcomes could be reviewed and perhaps reversed. Rhrosty.

Well, so far we’ve got six posters who are right on the ball and one article writer who just doesn’t get it!

" ... two decades of mandatory detention erodes Australia's human rights record. ... "

The above statement goes to the "delusion of benevolence" that some australian's hold about themselves.

The reality is is that the crown is a genocidal institution, and its knowing and obliging servants are filth. Indeed, the crown has a centuries old history of abuse, including in the post WWII era, not limited to the theft of children and the destruction of families.

Of course, when considering how best to deal with the child abusers has the potential to lead us to a very dark line of thought.

..

Amongst the rationale and the reasonable, there is no question that health and security checks need to be done, but that is an entirely different matter to prolonged detention in circumstances evidenced to lead to adverse health outcomes.

..

As for the destruction of id documentation, that is often a necessity in order to escape, which the stultified morons in this place well know, but simply choose to ignore.

Bull dust Dreamer. If they can get money out, they can get ID out. In fact most of them fly out quite openly.

As for long detention, that is their choice. They chose to break the law by coming into our waters without a visa. I suggest you try doing that into Indonesia, if you think we're tough.

Then of course, we fools that we are, will pay for their repatriation to their claimed homeland, any time they wish.

The title of this article and the one-sentence brief are misleading. They are about the policy of mandatory detention, but the article is then entirely about children in detention.

Two quite different things.

Mandatory detention for asylum seekers is essential. The idea of them just being able to move freely in society is crackers.

But for children, it may be different, sometimes. There may be merit in moving them out of detention centres, although I doubt that it is as clear-cut as Jo would have us believe.

As is so often the case, a huge part of this story is entirely missing from this article. That is; the need for a strong deterrence factor so that we can bring onshore asylum seeking to an end, or at least start discouraging ever more people from jumping on rickety boats and risking their lives, and start reducing the simmering discontent in Australian society, which is very likely to give us a government that clamps right down on asylum seeking, thus trapping thousands of people in the middle of major policy changes.

Mandatory detention is necessary, not only until people have had their refugee statuses determined, but as a fundamental part of this deterrence factor.

Jo, please argue for ALL Australia’s refugee intake to happen within our formal immigration program and for onshore asylum seeking to be terminated quickly and decisively, for everyone’s sake!

That would be surely the best way to address your concerns about safety, stress, psychological trauma and the like in the longer term, wouldn’t it?

I wonder where we’d be now with this whole issue if Australia had never had a mandatory detention policy?

Dreamon said;

As for the destruction of id documentation, that is often a necessity
in order to escape, which the stultified morons in this place well know, but simply choose to ignore.
-=-=-=
Please do not insult us with such ridiculous statements.
How could they get to Indonesia without a passport ?
I suggest that you face the fact that there is a high level of illegal
actions, destroying a passport is in itself illegal.

Careful there Steven, you haven't thought that one right through mate.

Let the kids out, no matter how kindly, or in what you may think beneficial manner, & you're headed for a big problem.

I can see it now, the headline in 15 years time. "Stolen Generation of[what ever boat people you like] Demand Compensation".

You know I'm right, don't you mate? You don't really expect any kindness to be recognised, & received gratefully do you? No way anyone you help will not use it against you, if they get a chance.

What we need is a good supply of small rubber duckies. We could drop all boat people off, in their own rubber ducky, just off shore of where the boat came from.

Thank you, Jo Coghlan, for a timely reminder of how pernicious policy can be.

the destruction of id documentation,
Dream On,
As jazz points out, how did they get through several countries to get to Indonesia. With documents of course. Once in Indonesia the documents are put in a safe place and/or forwarded to Australia to be collected after our ignorant authorities let them all stay here.
It simply is numbing to see so many silly people in authority to get so hoodwinked.

*Bazz, Individual, HasBeen*

I suspect that none of you has even read the *Asylum Seeker convention* and if you have, you either choose to ignore it or alternatively you simply do not understand it.

Having said that though, and in the hope that you do not misunderstand me, if you do not want legitimate asylum seekers to come here, then as said on numerous occasions, what you should be doing is advocating for a withdrawal from the convention, instead of voting for individuals who demonstrate contempt for it, and a lot of other conventions as well.

I have no problem with anyone simply not wanting asylum seekers.

However, to be contemptuous of the law, brings with it wide ranging consequences, whether it be local, state, national or even international, which in and of itself, is a subject worthy of its own thread.

Of course, in not accepting asylum seekers, you risk contributing to a situation like that which occurred when those seeking to escape Germany were turned back. And, every now and then, perhaps the loss of a high level defector, a scientist, or someone else "carrying" invaluable information of one kind or another.

As for documents, clearly some of you do not understand and are unprepared to accept what is necessary in some cases to escape from threat to life and liberty.

As for the boats themselves, I accept that there will likely always be those who are a security or disease risk as well as those who are simply looking for a better life. But of course, that is not limited to boat people, is it now? And of course, those who come in by plane are not subject to mandatory detention are they, notwithstanding that as recently broadcast, there is a significant problem of people arriving with bogus documents who do not choose to voluntarily disclose this?

As for the apprehension of asylum seekers, I believe that it provides good practice for our military and national security networks, much as insects nibbling on plants.

What is of fundamental importance to me, for a lot of reasons, is that in dealing with these people, the authorities do not resort to abuse. As history suggests, individuals who are allowed to practice abuse soon enough turn on their own when they stand not to get their own way, which ought be a concern for all of us.

I also believe that as life has become unnecessarily tough for a lot of otherwise decent hard working Australians, that the mere thought of it becoming worse in part as a consequence as a result of those who appear to receiving preferential treatment, is something which is unstomachable.

But I would caution that some of you by giving into fear, hatred, prejudice and bigotry are allowing yourselves to be manipulated for the purpose of gaining your political support.

OK DreamOn. What's your plan?

Bearing in mind the following:

1. We need to be fair to legitimate refugees in the camps waiting for lawful admission.
2. We need to minimise the costs to the Australian people.
3. We need to take into account that many of the asylum seekers have no documents, which means long and protracted processing to establish who they are.
4. Quarantine
5. Young men without papers claiming to be younger than 17 (clearly many are not) so that if admitted, they can bring their families out.

How would you design and manage the system if you had the chance

Dreamon, stop trying to divert the conversation.
You have not explained how they got to Indonesia without passports.

Now do not say anything until you answer that.

People who arrive in Australia, without a visa and seeking asylum are required to stay in detention well beyond the period of time it takes to process an asylum claim. Denying a person liberty is an infringement of a fundamental human right.

Immigration detention has a detrimental impact on the mental and physical health of adults and children. Because of children's particular vulnerabilities, prolonged detention can cause additional problems for their development.

The expansion of Community Detention would be much more cost effective and humane than being kept in an Immigration Detention Centre. Community Detention allows for much more freedom of movement. Policies should be adjusted to meet the best interests of the children in these situations.

KM4005, welcome to OLO.

As I have said many times on this forum in response to such comments: What about the deterrence factor?

Are you really happy for onshore asylum seeking to just continue indefinitely and indeed escalate considerably if we implement no deterrence factors?

You wrote:

<< People who arrive in Australia, without a visa and seeking asylum are required to stay in detention well beyond the period of time it takes to process an asylum claim. >>

Well I hope that this has been true... as a fundamental part of the deterrence factor.

Wouldn’t it, as per my last post, be a MUCH better idea to shut down onshore asylum seeking and conduct all refugee intake through our proper formal immigration programs?

Thanks for replying to my post Ludwig. I am a little unsure, however, about your comment saying that you hope asylum seekers, including children, are detained for longer periods of time than necessary. The prison- like environemnt and lack of freedon, with constant surveilance and control is confusing and intimidating for those detained. And the act of keeping people in detention has obviously not deterred people from seeking asylum.

KM4005, you wrote:

<< I am a little unsure, however, about your comment saying that you hope asylum seekers, including children, are detained for longer periods of time than necessary. >>

Regarding children in detention; please see my first post in this thread.

Regarding time spent in detention; if an asylum seeker’s claim is easily and quickly processed, then yes they should stay in detention for longer – for a predetermined minimum period deemed to be the best balance between accommodating those found to be refugees and implementing a deterrence factor that stops the boats from coming.

If a person’s claim is difficult to sort out and takes a long time, then they should not spend extra time in detention.

Once detainees have been told that they are going to be accepted as refugees, any extra time in detention should not be difficult to tolerate.

Please don’t underestimate the importance of a deterrence strategy.

<< And the act of keeping people in detention has obviously not deterred people from seeking asylum. >>

I beg to strongly disagree. This was pivotal in stopping or almost stopping the boats in Howard’s policy platform. The number of arrivals escalated only after Rudd undertook the most absurd political move of all time in watering down Howard’s border-protection policy and opening the onshore asylum seeking issue right up again.

Australia (and every country in the world) has every right to protect its borders and to do its bit for refugees entirely through its formal immigration program and international aid programs.

Do you think we should allow onshore asylum seeking to just continue indefinitely, with at least the current rate of arrivals and probably a much increased rate if the present policies stay in place? Or do you see the merit in my very strong desire for our refugee intake to occur entirely within our immigration program?

Sorry KM4005, please see my SECOND post re: children in detention.

Dream on,
Forgive me but I was led to believe the Asylum Convention was for refugees & not for the troops of the silent invasion of this country.

Oh well, I guess I will be the loan sheep amongst the Wolves, get your collective claws out !

I would rather see a much, much, much, more open doors policy. I say cut the defence budget by 2/3'rds and spend the money saved on helping people, rather then killing them, building them homes and educating them (with the Billions saved). I think Eisenhower said it best.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Valley Guy,
Even more sensible would be to prevent people becoming refugees in the first place. Any suggestions on how to achieve this ?
Also, how would you deal with the non-genuine refugees ?

DreamOn. I thought you cared about this stuff! But so far no response to my questions. You're not conceding are you??

Posted by Herbert Stencil, Monday, 14 May 2012 7:04:21 PM

" ... DreamOn. I thought you cared about this stuff! But so far no response to my questions. You're not conceding are you?? ... "

Hello *Herbert* Sorry, but no apologies for the late reply as I have had more pressing commitments and no time for indulging in my OLO habit/hobby. Additionally, we have had this debate more times than I can remember so for me it is largely a regurgitation however ...

PAUSE - *LudWig*

" ... deterrence factor? ... "

Why deter Asylum Seekers at all? I suspect also that what you are advocating for is withdrawal from the conventional in favor of an Australian system. Fair enough.

Having said that, I do not want a large population here in Oz, especially given "we" refuse to adequately medicate, represent, educate and house "our" own people.

If I had my way the wig parasites (the lawyers) and the A.ustralian M.oney G.rubbers association(the doctors,) with limited exceptions, would be all on something like a fixed price, means tested, sustainable fund - universal coverage - register with your AusCard, walk in and walk out - and sent to the bush to look after the *BlakFellas* and the *Cockies* whether they like it or not.

Re immigration, I would probably limit immigration to just legitimate Asylum Seekers, unions of love, and further restrict family reunion and skilled migration (in favor of training our own.)

Having said that, I have no desire to be a dictator, and would draw strongly on the wisdom of the past collecting dust on shelves, the knowledge of the present and more intimately involve the public in the formation of policy etc

Now *Herbert* as to your specific questions, I believe I may need another 350.

Standby ...

Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 10 May 2012 5:26:02 PM

" ... *DreamOn* stop trying to divert the conversation. You have not explained how they got to Indonesia without passports... Now do not say anything until you answer that. ... "

*Bazz* as far as I am concerned, if people are genuine Asylum Seekers, they can come butt naked if they like, anytime, anyhow. It would likely delay their processing, but ...

..

*Herbert*

" ... 1. We need to be fair to legitimate refugees in the camps waiting for lawful admission. ... "

In your opinion you mean to say. If they are in a camp, they can stay there and wait with the possibility of remote support with preference in terms of intake going to those who have no where else to go. In that regard, what must be recognised is that the likes of Indonesia and Malaysia are not members of the convention and relevant parties are not welcome, which in some cases ends up as a case of " ... out of the frying pan and into the fire. ... " As for the lawful admission comment, asylum seekers can come however they can and for good reason. If you don't want that then advocate for the withdrawal from the convention.

" ... 2. We need to minimise the costs to the Australian people. ... "

Limit overall immigration as already said, nationalise the sytem with full transparency and accountability, and limit the processing time with the only exceptions being critical security and medical issues.

<< I suspect also that what you are advocating for is withdrawal from the conventional in favor of an Australian system. Fair enough. >>

DreamOn, I just can’t work out what you mean by this.

" ... 3. We need to take into account that many of the asylum seekers have no documents, which means long and protracted processing to establish who they are. ... "

I reckon that if empowered to do so I could talk to the relevant *BaPak Indonesia* and have everyone from that country sorted within a month. Thereafter, a good opportunity for the new foreign minister to strengthen diplomatic ties. Oh, I do have a strong working familiarity with what is required in Indonesia having done the process myself on more than one occassion. More often than not the guvment simply do not care to know, to the extent that one honorable Ozzie sheila/lawyer went to Indo herself and soon enough had the case of her client sorted.

" ... 4. Quarantine ... "

is important however you arrive and whether you are Australian or not. If you as an Ozzie come in crook to the airport you'll be grabbed soon enough, have no illusions about that. Thereafter, T.B. scans can be done in a day in most cases and a vaccination program over a month or so - depending on the particular requirements obviously and the likely origin and transit route of the individual and recommended vaccinations, some of which take longer than others to administer. As to evidencing the efficacy of the vaccines, do they even bother?

" ... 5. Young men without papers claiming to be younger than 17 (clearly many are not) so that if admitted, they can bring their families out. ... "

Says who? Are you claiming insider information or can you refer to something on the public record perhaps? I have confidence that the foreign minister can cut his teeth on a range of opportunities as per 3. above.

Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 8:42:27 PM

<< I suspect also that what you are advocating for is withdrawal from the conventional in favor of an Australian system. Fair enough. >>

" ... *DreamOn* I just can’t work out what you mean by this. ... "

Sorry *LudWig* there seems to be a typo in there, and it should read:

" ... I suspect also that what you are advocating for is withdrawal from the (Asylum Seeker) convention<snip> in favor of an Australian system. Fair enough. >> ... "