In the very first line Kali uses "flout its voluntary legal obligations"

No Kali, it is either voluntary or legal enforceable, it can't be both.

From my brief reading of the UNHCR convention, the Coalition's actions comply with the letter of the convention. That it does not comply with activists implied interpretation is irrelevant.

From what I can see the TPVs are far better than Labor's bridging visa's that by restricting the right to work violates the convention.

Shadow Minister, what I mean by "voluntary legal obligation" is that Australia voluntarily ratified the Refugee Convention in 1954 and thus from then on is legally bound by it. Australia was not forced to sign it, thus it was a voluntarily assumed legal obligation.

If someone arrives by plane complete with passport and a visa of some sort, we at least have reasonable assurance that they are who they say they are. This is not the case with most boat people, whose background may be very difficult to reliably establish. The visa system itself is designed to filter out persons likely to over-stay but can never be 100% effective.

There are two big issues with recent waves of asylum seekers (irrespective of how they arrive).

Firstly, the system across the globe is being abused on a grand scale by those primarily seeking a higher standard of living rather than mere asylum wherever they can find it. For a person in a third world country, gaining permanent residence in Australia or a similar high income country is like winning the lottery.

Secondly the post-arrival experience of recent refugee settlers in Australia has generally been very poor, with very high rates of dependence on social security and low employment rates even five years after settlement.

What has become increasingly obvious is that that vast majority of those arriving by boat are not fleeing persecution as so many would have us believe. A recent four corners program and an article by two american journalists who made the trip from Indonesia confirm this.

The assertion is also made that the huge influx under labor was due to "the fluctuation of violence around the world, rather than policy". This is patently false. The new government managed to cut the arrivals dramatically in a matter of weeks.

Then we have an excerpt from the convention. "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened . . . provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

So these people might not be illegal but their entry is. We also have a proviso to "show good cause". Destroying one's passport etc would not seem to be a good start.

Omkali,

The present government is presently complying with the letter of the convention, with the exception of the bridging visas. The TPVs which replace the bridging visas will comply.

Detention until assessed is not forbidden, neither is off shore processing and TPVs. Etc.

Oh, I luv ya Kali.

Let's get a few things out of the road first. The UNCHR Convention is just that. It is purely a voluntary "CONVENTION" set up specifically to deal with the myriad of Refugees & misplaced persons after WW2 in 1947, amended in 63. It's not a "LAW." It also states, later, that no Country is "compelled" to comply with all the paragraphs there-in. Now let's take your example, of which you have made much.

"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened . . . provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."

Notice the words, "coming directly from a territory." What does this mean exactly? Just what it says, "Directly." It does say later that crossing multiple Borders to shop around for the best deal is not on.

Kali: Rod St George who worked at Manus Island says "it is not even fit to serve as a dog kennel." He has "never seen human beings so destitute, so helpless and so hopeless before."

Obviously Rod's never been to one of their Countries. The accommodation on Manus, for most of them, is the equivalent of an Aboriginal stepping up from Doomadgee to the Sheraton Penthouse in Surfers. This is a ploy to tug at the heart strings of Australians who think everybody live as they do in "Days of Our Lives." A good example of this is the makeshift shanty towns blown away in the Philippines.

Cont.

Cont. Kali: if you have the means and the requisite visa (usually a tourist or student visa) to arrive by plane and then apply for asylum, you will be treated with dignity.

I have the cure for this form of deceit. Every person who applies to enter Australia on a Tourist Visa must sign a Declaration that they will not claim Asylum once they arrive in Australia. Before leaving the Vessel in which they arrived they must tick the Box on the Customs Declaration that says they will not claim Asylum, before leaving the vessel. This way they can be sent back to where they came from legally

However, if you are so desperate as to get on a boat and request protection, you will suffer the consequences for being so vulnerable.
And so they should because they have not complied by Australian Law or the UNCHR Convention.

Kali: The Coalition is also planning to remove government-funded legal assistance to asylum seekers who have arrived by boat,

There is nowhere in the "Convention" that compels any Country to provide to provide anything other than "Basic Assistance" on Accommodation & Services. It does not compel a host Country to provide 5 Star Accommodation or top level Legal Services.

Kali: which would inevitably result in people being returned to persecution and grave danger.

Let me quote an oft quoted saying, "You don't know that." I'm now looking smug. We only have their word for this claim. Most Refugees coming by Boat have been proven to be Financial Refugees. Again the UNCHR says that, that is illegal.

Kali: Why is Australia insistent on trying to stop the small but inevitable flow of refugees into this country?

The number may be smaller than the ECU, but in percentage of population it is equivalent or larger.

Kali: Why is there such sensationalist scaremongering when it comes to boat people? What are we afraid of?

In one word. "MUSLIMS." That is enough to terrify any Country. Unfortunately that's another Subject I think we've all been through until we are sick of the very word.

Cont.

Sparkyq
"What has become increasingly obvious is that that vast majority of those arriving by boat are not fleeing persecution as so many would have us believe."

Then how come the vast majority of boat arrivals - about 80% I believe - are found to be refugees?

Jayb
" It's not a "LAW."

The Convention is not, but the Migration Act is, and the definition of refugee has been incorporated, word for word, in the Migration Act. The effect is to import the definition of refugee in international law, and make it into domestic law, which is why the courts won't let the executive flout it.

Again, the solution to the whole issue is to withdraw from the Convention. This would remove all the double standards, tokenism and huge waste. It would allow governments to decide the numbers of refugees and conditions of acceptance of the onshore refugee caseload, exactly as it does for the offshore refugee caseload, and all other categories of migration

Cont.

Kali: Australia has been, and still is, active in both these wars, yet we struggle to take responsibility for our role in the conflicts.

Yes we have been helping the people by eliminating the terrorists in their own Countries. Therefore we have been taking responsibility. They are not fleeing us they are fleeing the terrorists in their Country.

Kali: For those who cannot see through the political opportunism, boat people have become strangers to be feared rather than vulnerable people trying to escape the same fundamentalists that we abhor and are so terrified of.

Yet they are willing to come to the West & demand that we change our Culture because it offends them. Even the moderate ones. Haven't we had some great discussions on this subject. E.g.: "The Great Southern Caliphate."

Kali: The arrival rate over the last 12 months has been higher than the historic average, but this has more to do with the fluctuation of violence around the world, rather than policy.

BS.

Kali: They have constructed the notion that people smugglers are the "scum of the earth," conveniently forgetting that Oskar Schindler was also a people smuggler.

Now you're really pushing boundaries. Entirely difference circumstances.

Kali: We hold tight to a national myth of a kind and liberal society that welcomes new arrivals, a land where everyone gets a "fair go".

Yes we do & rightly so. But Australians are hard on people who try to BS us. & rightly so.

Kali darling, you're full of it. Now on to other posters.

Sparkyq: What has become increasingly obvious is that that vast majority of those arriving by boat are not fleeing persecution as so many would have us believe. A recent four corners program and an article by two American journalists who made the trip from Indonesia confirm this.

Yes, wasn't that a great interview on the realities of just what happens.

So, Kali darling, will you just fade away never to be heard off again. It's obvious that you are a Muslim or a sympathizer waiting to set up "The Great Southern Caliphate."

If some people cannot access ‘”proper channels”’, that’s just too bad.

There must be rules for everything, and there is no rule – even from the near-criminal United Nations – that says any country has to give permanent residence to anyone.

The nonsense about ‘rights’ for any old foreigner who wants to live in Australia completely blank out the rights of Australia and Australians to decide who they want to live in their country – in the minds of people like Kali Goldstone, that is.

And, let’s have less lambasting of the Coalition (which is, so far, doing BA about its promise to clear up the illegal arrival fiasco) for having the attitude that: "someone who comes by boat from taking the place of someone who is waiting to come our country through the proper processes” will not be allowed to settle in Australia.

Kevin Rudd kicked that one off!

TPV’s will not undermine anyone’s rights; most of these ‘rights’ dwell only in the minds of people like the author.

Given that both parties have similar approaches to illegals - the problem is the instigation of policy – TPV’s for all “genuine” refugees are the answer. Numbers would fall rapidly when these people realised that they wouldn’t be living on the relative luxury of the dole in Australia for the rest of their lives.

The faux compassion and caring of the Left must be knocked in the head once and for all for the good of Australia and Australians. These goody-two-shoes, making up their own rules and trying to dictate policy, are rapidly become traitorous.

Kali

Your argument walks bang into the same obvious fatal objections as that of other refugee advocates.

The basis of your entire argument is an appeal to what a mythical decision-maker "Australia" thinks. But, like all collectivism, this ignores the moral hazard and distribution of costs within the group. Both you and your antatonists are agreed that the government does *not* represent your views, and this fact completely invalidates your entire argument that they should be forced to pay for your values.

The problem is that, under the Convention, some people are able to force other people to bear the costs of their claimed values, while bearing none or very little themselves. It's parasitic behaviour, and everyone is onto it.

The solution is to withdraw from the Convention, and to re-think refugee policy in such a way that those advocating taking refugees, bear all the costs of processing and resettlement themselves. No shunting the costs onto Joe Average who disagrees with you. Then the RCOA, and you, and Kerry Murphy, and anyone else who agrees with taking more refugees - including me - should be able to take as many refugees as we want to sponsor, provided we sponsor them and pay for it ourselves and indemnify everyone else against the costs. Given that freedom and responsibility, we could easily work out how to make it cost less than $1 million per refugee, which is what the previous administration spent per offshore refugee. No wonder the population are angry and disgusted about it.

The missing concept is the morality of being responsible for your own claimed values. If the Convention were abnegated, and the limit set by Australians *real* willingness to fund them - voluntarily! - you might find we could take a lot more, more cheaply, with less administrative torture of asylum-seekers, and with less offence to the rest of the community who rightly object to being forced to pay obscene amounts for others' pious pretences.