Perhaps to stop rednecks dominating political motivation, refugees and their organisers could think outside the squares of conventional, predictable,formalistic deterrence of what Bruce refers to correctly as 'politicisation of the uniformed branch of Defence'.

Given the cost of several thouand dollars a head imposed by 'people smugglers', what if groups of, say, ten refugees pooled their funds, got their hands on a big enough light aircraft piloted by a fellow refugee, and flew it, one way, to some minor airport within Australia that had no air traffic control or customs.
There they could slip into the larger community (not a redneck electorate) where their presence would possibly remain unreported for a while.

Good planning by the refugees or their organisers could see this carried out, possibly a few times before Border Protection (?) was able to counter this.
Fantasy perhaps, but also possible.

Ponder
LOL.

That's thinking outside the square.

Bruce
You repeatedly say that Australia's actions are illegal. What is your authority for that proposition?

Both major political parties are in this up to the neck, there is no significant difference between them, each gladly adopts the hardline policies of the other, and the whole thing is not party political in that sense.

The problem is the lack of any voice of moderation - such as my own (ahem).

On the one hand you've got the redneck solution - "Sink the boats!", "Gut-shoot 'em!" etc.

On the other hand you've got the fake moral superiority of
a) regarding the UN as the supreme arbiter of all that is moral
b) regarding "rights" as whatever politicians say they are, and
c) happily forcing the costs of the whole exercise onto the population at large.

All the royal commissions in the world will not be able to come up with a solution if Australia's adherence to the Convention itself is not questioned and critically examined.

It is the Convention that is creating this huge empire of moral dodginess and massive waste, at so much cost in real human suffering.

The reason is because the Convention gives a huge advantage to someone who applies for refugee status onshore, rather than offshore. An offshore application that satisfies the definition of refugee status can be legally rejected; an onshore application that satisfies the definition of refugee status cannot, simple as that.

That's what the entire issue is about. That's why people come by boat to try to take advantage of this fact. And that's why successive governments try to do whatever they can, no matter how much it perverts and subverts good government, to try to legally characterise boat arrivals as offshore applications - because both major parties regard withdrawing from the Convention as out of the question.

This is the real elephant in the parlour.

The government-funded industry of moral fakery is at least as culpable as the rednecks whose productive activity is paying for them all.

Good post, Jardine

You are no doubt right about the Refugee Convention. This link from the UNHCR gives some idea of the numbers of refugees, internally displaced people, and stateless people around the world

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html

There is no way that Australia could open its borders to everyone claiming to be (or really being) a refugee without being swamped. Nor can it do anything about the overpopulation and other forms of mismanagement in foreign countries that give rise to flows of refugees and illegal immigrants.

If we are taking people for humanitarian reasons, then a genuine refugee has a stronger case than someone who merely wants a better life, given that we can't take everyone. (Most of us would agree that it isn't open to the government of a nation state to walk over its own people to help foreigners.) Only about a third of asylum seekers who arrive by air are accepted as refugees, because they have valid travel documents (or the airline is responsible for them) and their claims can be tested.

When asylum seekers arrive by boat, they generally destroy their travel documents and tell an unverifiable story that ticks all the boxes of the Refugee Convention. The officials who test their claims are advised to give them the benefit of the doubt and don't want to risk getting it wrong and sending someone back who is later tortured or killed. It can also be impossible to deport failed asylum seekers, because we can't prove where they came from or the home country won't cooperate. The vast majority of failed asylum seekers who arrived in the UK from 1997 to 2004 are still there.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/9.14

It is true that total numbers of boat people are small compared to the legal immigration intake, but they had been rising sharply up to this year.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/QG/BoatArrivals

The UK got half a million asylum claims between 1997 and 2004, when they got tougher, not counting dependants who arrived later.

@JKJ You have posed the same question as to the legal basis for Bruce's argument before and it has been answered before. It is insufficient to focus on the Refugee Convention. There was a subsequent protocol that Australia (after some delay) duly ratified. Unless and until Australia withdraws from the Convention (and Protocol) it is bound by its provisions. That it manifestly fails to comply with those obligations cannot be seriously disputed.

What that failure to comply does however, is point up Australia's selective notion of compliance with international law. Happy to rely on that law when it seeks to stop Japanese whaling for example; acts in complete disregard when it comes to invading other countries on behalf of its American masters (Iraq and Afghanistan to name but two),

As we saw in last night's Budget, there is a mean and vindictive streak in the current government. Scott Morrison is no more than a personification of that mean spirited vindictiveness.

Bruce, I respectfully applaud your efforts to shine light on the insanity of our foreign policy in general and refugee policy in particular.

James O'Neill what the budget, & the boat people policy indicate is that there is a sane & intelligent streak to the current government, something that I'm afraid has evaded people like you & Bruce Haigh.

The other thing you fail to mention, is we have no requirement to re settle any asylum seeker, real or claimed. All we have to do is offer safety. That is exactly what we are doing, in the present camps.

What we should be doing is slashing our legitimate asylum seeker intake to something more manageable. I believe something like 7 times the New Zealand intake, would be a reasonable number regarding populations. That would give a little less that 5000, a number we could just perhaps manage without disadvantaging our own citizens.

If you people want to live in a disaster zone, there are plenty of them around the world for you to move to. There is no need to create a new one here in Oz to satisfy your strange cravings.

Ponder,
Already been done.

Don't know how many times, but easy to arrange with mobile phones, etc. Just arrange for friends to pick up at an airstrip and give time and mapref.

Recall one instance where they were detected by an astute service station attendant who saw the strange people and reported it. They would have to remain underground though or get false cards, etc. if they want to be part of our society.

Fantasy perhaps, but also possible.
Ponder,
It's been done by boats in bad weather when Australian Navy & Customs ships stay in town because it's too rough.
I recall a tour guide telling me that they saw a large Indonesian looking vessel sailing into the Gulf in bad weather & a couple of days later there was no sign of it anywhere.
Another one went all the way though the GBR down to Cairns & another lot was camped on Raine Island for two weeks before anyone knew.
I have personally watched a dinghy from PNG going within 150 metres of a Customs vessel unimpeded & the occupants going ashore at an australian island.
Perhaps the Customs boats are so sophisticated that they don't need crew outside the cabins to observe what's going on around them.

James
" @JKJ You have posed the same question as to the legal basis for Bruce's argument before and it has been answered before."

I find that disingenuous. It was only answered in the sense that we established that the assertion was definitely 100% wrong, and that you had no basis whatsoever in domestic and international law for your assertion that Australia is acting unlawfully. All you did was assert it, when challenged post links, and when the links were followed up it turned out they do *NOT* establish what you are contending for.

I repeat, it is not true that the Australian government is acting unlawfully. If you say it's true, prove it. Don't just by repeat the same mere assertions and opinions. Actually cite the section of statute or the Convention, or case law.

I say you can't do it but if you can, go ahead?

To Brucey and to ALL –

Answer the below multiple choice questions.

1.Which class of white Anglo Australians (poorer or richer) would have had the power to wield and orchestrate to create Australia’s huge immigration program and multi-cultural policies over 60 years or so?

a.poorer class (so-called ‘red necks’) ; b. wealthier classes (includes right and left rulership elite and underlings)

ans. (b)

2.What suburbs and areas predominantly did the newcomers settle in?

a.working class/poor white Anglo areas; b. wealthier class suburbs/areas

ans. (a)

3.Which group/class of Anglo Australians have lived with and endured through all the extreme, myriad of tough pressures and problems that would be expected to arise for host and newcomer alike in any such massive reshaping of a nation?

a.working class/poor white Anglo; b. wealthier classes

ans. (a)

4.Which group of poor or richer class of Anglos is most likely to now possess the most experience and knowledge/education on the intricacies of this entire phenomenon [the answer does not require that the group/people with such knowledge actually also possess the ability to then properly articulate those issues – that is a separate issue]?

a.working class/poor white Anglo; b. wealthier class

ans. (a)

..........................................

On that note:

. . . how can the wealthier class of white Anglos which themselves had the sole control and whom deliberately decided to not place the newcomers near them but rather on top of the poorer classes in outer suburbia without asking them or consulting them, make ANY judgements or claims of any semblance of superior knowledge/understanding on the issues (as they always do) by dismissing outright every single claim and comment and plea from the actual white Anglo Australians [poorer classes] who have and do reside with and endure through the complex changes and tensions and who actually have as their neighbours and street members people from all over the world and every culture?

What authority do these non-experienced and uninformed class/people rely upon?

. . . continued . . .

This authority must NOT simply be 'we travel more' or 'we are more educated' [in what? a single specialisation if even THAT], or . . .

. . . the most common and popular excuse (never proven) . . . NOT simply to deliberately doctor the image of the poorer class by hand-picking the worst apparent examples (e.g. comments like "go home nips" etc.)

in attempt to degrade the entire image and mind worthiness of that class. Notice how the left NEVER delves a bit deeper into the issue and attempts to find out what is behind such silly and seemingly ridiculous outbursts (likely to be just poorly articulated opinions) which in ANY society is common amongst the poorest groups.

One of the best and most obvious examples I can think of here is with the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The news often shows images of apparently civilized Jewsish citizens contrasted with crazed, maddened, angry, violent and often extremely intolerant of other people and religions etc. which the Palestian often expresses.

The worst is little kids throwing rocks at tanks and also clips from Palestinian TV which show quite often and openly views of severe racists and hatred to Jews and even Christians world-wide, even some time little kids are asked on TV kids shows about Jews and commonly use violent, bigoted and even genocidal language.

However do these same Leftists treat this underdog the same as they treat their own domestic and racial member - the poorer whites?

NO WAY.

In fact, the Leftist go to all levels to make those extremely hateful and racist muslims of Palestine seem to be really the peace-loving group and they contrast this with the Jews as the evil aggresors.

I wonder what led the Leftists to be so different in treatment here, Palestinians who seem superficially racist and violent and uninformed and in utter fear of nothing; and the Anglo Aussies of poorer classes who they claim through manipulating the media and opinion in pop culture, that the poor Anglos are similarly racist and violent and uninformed.

JKJ: (1) Australia is a signatory to the Convention on the rights of Refugees.
(2) Because that Convention was a limited in its scope it was the subject of a Protocol in January 1967 which Australia later acceded to.
(3) The convention and Protocol impose obligations on signatories (i.e Australia) to abide by its provisions.
(4) That Australia is in breach of those obligations is not a matter for serious debate other than those (such as yourself apparently) who resolutely refuse to accept that fact.
(5) You can find the relevant provisions and discussion thereon in any of the standard international law textbooks, especially those dealing with human rights.
(6) Use the index to track discussion on any number of cases involving Australia.
(7) One case of interest (in part because it predates the horrors of the current regime in Canberra) is Bakhtiyari v Australia. It started in the Family Court in mid 2003 and went all the way to the High Court.
(8) The courts deal with refugee cases every day. In Sydney I understand that it is the largest single area of work for the Federal Circuit Court.
(9) Just a limited number of examples of actions contrary to international law include the turning back of boats on the high seas; the unlimited detention of children; the arbitrary exclusion of refugees from having their cases determined; the use of camps on Manus and Nauru without observing the required procedures; and many many others.
I have been involved in this area of law for more than 30 years and do not appreciate your cheap shots; nor your manifest misreporting of my earlier responses when this topic has come up on OLO.

What would be 'unsustainable' would be to open the flood-gates.

What is unsustainable is any endeavour to absorb all of the world's millions of refugees and displaced persons into the 'developed world'.
Just doesn't compute.

What is also unsustainable is anything which promotes world population growth; relocate some people, ok, but there needs also to be a mass education campaign (and local development) to 'contain' population explosion and to gear endeavours towards better quality of life.

What should compute is a concerted international effort to resolve the underlying causes of displaced persons.
Unless that can be done, all the 'Conventions' in the world are mere hot air, wish-lists, and self-delusion (or feel-good self-flattery).

What is unconscionable is keeping asylum-seekers in 'limbo' for protracted periods (and probably also mandating their 'placement' in PNG - a fate I would wish on no-one).
Refugee processing should be swift, on- or off-shore, with those 'approved' quickly placed into 'appropriate' community on bridging visas, and those not approved relocated immediately to the overseas refugee camp to which they should have gone in the first place - to share in the same conditions as their fellows, and the same international efforts to resolve their 'plight'.

Perhaps it's time for re-introduction of 'cooperative' limited colonialisation in some of the world's trouble-spots?
After all, most previous colonies seem to have fared reasonably well, and surely experience and capacity would enable developed governments to do an even better job a second time around.

James

The fact that I keep proving you 100% wrong, and that you keep dishonestly insisting that you're right without being able to defend your own argument, is not a "cheap shot".

"I have been involved in this area of law for more than 30 years ..."

You obviously haven't understood the most basic things about it.

Get this.

1. Something isn't "illegal" for no other reason than that you don't like it.
2. The starting position is that the Migration Act makes it illegal for a non-citizen to enter Australia without a visa.
3. Asylum-seekers have no legal right whatsoever to enter Australia's territory without a visa, for the purpose of lodging a refugee claim.

You're talking legal nonsense. I've challenged you to provide authority *legally binding on Australia* for what you're saying, and you haven't done it, and you're still not doing it, because you're wrong, and you know it, and you keep knowingly trying to deceive others.

"Just a limited number of examples of actions contrary to international law include the turning back of boats on the high seas"

There is no such law. If there is, prove it.

"the unlimited detention of children"

Prove it.

"the arbitrary exclusion of refugees from having their cases determined"

They're not excluding them onshore; they're excluding them, if at all, offshore = you're legally wrong.

"the use of camps on Manus and Nauru without observing the required procedures"

What required procedures? Required by what law?

"and many many others"

More drivel.

"is not a matter for serious debate other than those (such as yourself apparently) who resolutely refuse to accept that fact"

You are only making a fool of yourself trying to prove the legality or illegality of something by that foolish argument.

Either cite proper legal authority or admit you can't and you're wrong.

No one has to prove anything to you Jardine K. Jardine. You are deliberately being difficult, for the sake of being a smartie pants. Why?
Now do us and yourself a favour, buy and read, "The Law of Refugee Status" by James C. Hathaway. I bet you haven't even heard of it. Once read and digested it you may return to this tutorial, should you persist with your non-sense you are headed for a big F.

Bruce Haigh

Well no wonder you like illegal boat people James O'Neill, you must have done quite well out of them over 30 years.

Bruce Haigh perhaps you could show a bit of support & consideration for the people who paid your salary all those years, & probable supply a nice retirement pension for you.

Your attitude of superiority is a bit misplaced. In a different time you would be reasonably considered something of a quisling.

Asylum seekers need passports and visas to make it as far as Malaysia or Indonesia!
Once there, at the behest of organised crime, they invariably destroy those documents.
They then shell out up to $15,000.00, for a one way trip to Christmas Island, in a dangerous unseaworthy rotting hulk!
Air fares are around $250 return per person!
Just what prevents these people from retaining their identifying paper work and just applying for a tourist visa, from their point of origin?
And then once on the Australian mainland, apply for asylum?
If they are i.e., former Afghan translators, who wore our uniform and worked for us, there'd be very few impediments placed in their way for them or their families; particularly if they were bright enough to retain their ID paper work!
There are few impediments for people, who have the means to fly as fare paying passengers, to as far as Indonesia, to just continue that journey here, as visa holding visitors; and for far less than they shell out to organised crime!
People who have deliberately destroyed their documentation, go through an academy award performance, when we refuse them entry.
Our only obligation to irregular arrivals, is to provide shelter, while we try to verify their claims.
Even then, we are under no obligation to settle them here, any more than we would be obliged to share our homes, with someone who breaks in during the night and just takes up permanent uninvited residence!
I put it, that people who deliberately destroy their ID's, have something to hide; and given that is so, we are not obliged to settle them here ever!
They could be anybody, even part of a people smuggling criminal organisation!
Rhrosty.

I think the reason why we are in this conundrum is because of people who think they're God's gift to the country, people like Bruce Haugh. If Bruce haigh had indeed spent 30 years in that service then how come it is still plagued by problems? If I didn't learn in my job over thirty years I'd out on my butt & nothing would work because I'm in a practical field. In bureaucracy & that's all bruce haigh was, a bureaucrat, you can have a career in achieving no posiive outcomes & receive a handsome pension as well.
With countless experts on the taxpayer patroll & still no solution. If those departments were a business they'd be broke in less than a week.

Bruce

I don't need to prove anything to you. I have since 1993 argued more refugee cases than you've had hot dinners, including in the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Federal and Full Federal Courts and recently on Manus Island.

Unlike you, I happen to know what I'm talking about. Hathaways text has been one of my tools of trade for decades, and I know that it's you who’s talking nonsense.

But enough of your attempted diversions and evasions. The point is, you said the government's actions are illegal, I've challenged you to prove it by showing legal authority for that proposition, and you haven't, because you can't, because you're wrong.

All
You can just imagine Bruce and James in the High Court.

Bruce: Good morning your Honours, my name is Haig, I appear for the plaintiffs.
Chief Justice: Yes Mr Haig?
Bruce: This is an application for writs of prohibition, mandamus and certiorari against the Minister for Immigration to prevent them carrying out certain unlawful actions.
CJ: And what is your authority for your proposition that his actions are illegal Mr Haig?
Bruce: "No one has to prove anything to you. You are deliberately being difficult, for the sake of being a smartie pants."
CJ: I see. Is that your main argument Mr Haig?
Bruce: Yes.
CJ: Application dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

Bruce: But wait! Your Honours! I've got another argument.
CJ: Oh yes? What is it?
Bruce: "Do us and yourself a favour, buy and read, "The Law of Refugee Status" by James C. Hathaway. I bet you haven't even heard of it. Once read and digested it you may return to this tutorial, should you persist with your non-sense you are headed for a big F."
CJ: (confers with other judges – sage and pitiful nods all round).
Application dismissed; plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs.

(James O'Neill pipes up.)
James: Yours Honours, perhaps if I could be of some assistance here?
CJ: Yes Mr O'Neill?
James. The issue seems to be what authority there is for the proposition that the defendants' actions are unlawful.

(cont.)
CJ: Yes.
James: “You can find the relevant provisions and discussion thereon in any of the standard international law textbooks, especially those dealing with human rights.”
CJ: And is that your main argument?
James: Yes your Honour.
CJ: Haven’t you got the onus of proof back the front Mr O’Neill.? It’s not for us to disprove that the government’s actions are illegal. You’re the one alleging they’re illegal. You need to prove they’re illegal in the first place.
James: “this is not a matter for serious debate other than those (such as yourself apparently) who resolutely refuse to accept that fact.”
CJ: I see. Is that your main argument Mr O’Neill?
James: Yes your Honour.
CJ: Application dismissed; plaintiff must pay the defendant’s costs.
James: “I do not appreciate your cheap shots.”

You guys are only making fools of yourself. All you’re doing is assuming something *subjective* - your feelings – makes actions that you don’t like illegal. And when I challenge that, you try to personalise the argument to me. No wonder the rednecks get incensed. You guys do nothing but talk down to them and when you know you’re wrong and you’re caught out, you just lie.

Look it’s quite simple. You need to actually quote objective sources of law, like the section of the statute or Convention, or the case law, for specific propositions.

Failing that, just admit you’re wrong.

Bruce
When you use words like tutorial and read this or that indicates a number of things.
You see this opinion site as an opportunity to educate others to conform to your views.

That Bruce is simply arrogrant. Who says your opinions are paramount and all others wrong or misinformed?
You?

that elephant is now in a very very small room.

LOL.

Don't worry, James O'Neill will turn up in another thread re-insisting that the government's actions are illegal.

It's like, they don't care that what they're saying is untrue.