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.