This Author is a lawyer and a registered migration agent, and thus one needs to remember he makes money out of encouraging and promoting this asylum seeker industry.

Hi Ozzie,

You may be aware that since September the new government has ceased referring clients under the IAAAS program, that is the government funded scheme to provide migration assistance to certain protection visa applicants. As for my own personal incentive, I assist applicants with many types of visa applications and receive a salary from my employer. The number or types of applications I complete don't increase or decrease my earnings.

I agree that we need to follow the money, and I suggest a good place to start is looking at the obscene expense of offshore processing. The massive contracts awarded to private security companies at IDCs in Australia and offshore also deserve greater scrutiny, IMO.

"The number or types of applications I complete don't increase or decrease my earnings".

That may be generally true up to a point, however what would happen if there was a substantial fall in the number of applications, would you or anyone else in your organisation be asked to reduce their hours of possibly laid off?

Five years ago whilst coming back from OS, this migration lawyer was sitting next to me at Singapore airport, and he was just going on and on about how much he was making from this industry.

Michael,
So you're somehow different to an employee of Transfield, G4S or any of the other people who make their living from immigration?
We don't see it that way, you're part of the problem, you're making money by contributing to the "pull factor" so as a refugee advocate and immigration profiteer you're just as culpable in the misery of Manus as anyone else.
Here's a post I made in 2011, to which I've never received a satisfactory reply, what's the connection between big business, the state and refugee advocates?

Can anyone further enlighten me on the relationship between Dr John Casey, Mark Goudkamp, The Refugee Action Ccoalition and Occupy Sydney?
Casey is an advocate of globalisation and open borders, he's lectured on immigration policy for free trade and international movement of labour.
What's more he advises Police forces on "Multicultural Policing" and was involved in the drafting of the 1996 Rotterdam Charter on diversity and Policing.
Mr Goudkamp and Dr Casey have presented numerous talks and seminars together under the auspices of the RAC and Mr Goudkamp has been the public face of Occupy Sydney.
Time constraints don't permit me to quote Dr Casey at length but even his CV is well worth a look, download it and you'll see why my interest has been piqued.

Why would a counter Capitalist coalition/movement be involved with an advisor to Governments, Police and Free Trade advocates?
Dr Casey is the very definition of a Globalist public servant, there's simply no other way to characterise him and his "Humanitarian" activities, work on NGO's and Refugee advocacy seem at odds with his support for Globalist Capitalism.
To put it in a more understandable way Dr Casey seems to be on the public policy end of the globalist capitalism, smoothing the way and re calibrating NGO's, activist groups and other notionally Liberal concerns into either controlled opposition to or controlled advocacy for Globalist Capitalism.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 23 October 2011 2:53:15 PM

Instead of jumping straight to ad hominem attacks, how about engaging with the substance of Michael’s argument? I think he raises some important issues.

Hi Jay,

We can agree to disagree about my personal complicity in the failure of government policies which I do not endorse. No asylum seeker is mandated as a refugee without assistance of some nature, regardless of where their claims for protection are considered. The fact that most asylum seekers do not understand the intricacies of refugee law and cannot prepare their application independently, does not negate the fact that those who are mandated are fleeing persecution. My interest and involvement in migration law is to act in the best interests of my clients, which you are likely aware is a professional obligation owed by all solicitors. I don't have any knowledge of the individuals or organisations from your earlier post so unfortunately cannot address your questions.

The purpose of this article was to instigate a discussion around a particular aspect of migration law which I think warrants greater scrutiny. I'd be glad to hear what you think about denying certain asylum seekers, who now have Australian families, access to the family migration program. They have built relationships with Australians because of various policy failures which lead to them waiting for months and years in the Australian community. Given the other concessions made to applicants for family visas, I think it is difficult to deny these Australian families the ability to settle permanently with their loved ones.

Do you have a particular view on this matter?