An asylum-seeker who is recognised as a refugee on Manus Island, and first re-settled in PNG, will have a claim for refugee status if he can get into Australia, if he can show that he has "well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion".

This will be relatively easy to establish in respect of PNG, because it is a very violent place full of the risk of persecution for those reasons, most of the asylum-seekers are Muslim, and the PNG locals will give short shrift to them in a way that they didn't to Australian expatriates of old.

When I was on Manus Island doing refugee cases in 2013, an Aussie expat told me about a 15 year old boy he met. The boy was coming home with his mother, at night, across a golf course in Port Moresby, when they were set upon by four rascals who tried to rape his mother. The boy got a rock and smashed in the head of one of these guys, and the others ran away. "Did you call the police?" asked the Aussie. "Call the police? Of course not!" answered the boy. "I was concerned to get my mother to safety, what would calling the police for the dead guy have done?" Left him on the links.

Another guy I met was a PNG national, from Enga province, working as a security guard. He told me he had been two years in a tribal war before getting this job. "Does the victorious tribe win land?" I asked. "No." He said.
"Women?"
"No."
"Stock?"
"No."
"Money or goods?"
"No."
"So why do you do it?" I asked.
"To decrease their numbers." quote unquote.

Rough, tough, and hard to bluff, that's our PNG wantoks.

A recognised refugee would only have to make it across the Torres Strait to make out a relevant risk to the requisite low standard of proof.

But wait, don't refugees improve every society in which they land with their "culture", their "beautiful food" and their incredible contribution to the arts and sciences?
Surely the only way for PNG to go forward is to open it's doors to millions of alien people, after all we're told that before the refugees arrived Australians were just a bunch of drunk yobbos sitting around eating mutton and bashing their wives.

Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, New Guinea for the New Guineans but White countries are for everbody!

Maybe so, but it is nonetheless, sufficiently advanced with our high tech help, to sort out the real asylum seekers from economic migrants, who destroy their papers, just to muddy the waters and slow down the processing; including unfortunately, real and genuinely deserving asylum seekers.

If people making there way to our refuge centres want to be processed a little quicker; they'd be well advised to keep all their identifying paper work.
Some of which could be receipts showing they lived at a particular address for an extended period, i.e!

In any event, people taking the "EXPENSIVE" people smuggling route, will now have to take their turn and behind those arriving by regular means, and with their identifying papers completely aiding the process.

And our promises to them include, never ever being offered resettlement in Australia!

Don't blame poor old PNG, for problems economic migrants and escaping war criminals may have created for themselves, by destroying what self identifying papers they had!

Almost as if they had something to hide, or would result in their automatic exclusion on character grounds?

And those who think that emotional blackmail is going to serve their ends, need to be advised they will very likely achieve the very opposite, with automatic repatriation being the logical conclusion to that type of (bad character) behavior!

Others living in worse more primitive conditions have learned to wait, without trying on emotional blackmail!

Yes it may work on the irresolute, or females with no capacity for logic, but decide all issues with an emotional response.
Not necessarily a bad thing, just entirely out of place, when we need to give too few places to too many genuinely deserving applicants!

There are people waiting in camps and under much harsher conditions, waiting for a legitimate chance.

They should be given first preference rather than liars, cheats and those who threaten self harm.

Besides, there ought to be enough mostly Muslim countries for Muslims to chose, without trying to impose their entirely alien culture on us!

Particularly when they're diametrically opposed to almost everything we believe in!
Rhrosty.

degrees of cruelty. How cruel is it that tens of thousands sit in refugee camps and yet in the last couple of terms of parliament we allowed 50,000 jump ahead of them by using illegal means. Granted some were just desperate but only the naive won't face the fact that many were simply economic refugees. Binoy employs the old guilt for the gullible ignoring the plight of those many waiting to come here legally. By all means ramp up the numbers but son't be so stupid as the Greens/Labour who cost countless their lives in drownings and put our nation great secuity risk.

Anzac Bridge rapist jailed for six years
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/anzac-bridge-rapist-jailed-for-six-years-20150121-12v4ee.html
I bet that young girl was enriched by her experience with an asylum seeker, gee I wonder what he did to annoy his girlfriend's family back in Iran? Surely it couldn't have been that he had a reputation for sexual misconduct back at home and his girlfriend's family didn't want him going near their women folk? Well it's OK, after raping the girl for 20 minutes his conscience came back, the women of Manus Island and Nauru don't need to worry about asylum seekers too much right?

I always wonder at the mind of the far left whinger, and its capacity to completely ignore or green wash out inconvenient facts even huge glaring ones such as the thousands of men women and children struggling and screaming helplessly before breathing in water and suffocating horribly.

This was not a inconvenience, it was a massacre that was entirely predictable, and which Labor facilitated against the advice of the department officials.

Shadow minister, I am opposed to indefinite mandatory detention of refugees, and our punitive treatment of refugees while in our "care".

I do not deny we need to do more to stop lives being lost at sea. How can we do this in a humane way?

We could work with countries like Indonesia and Malaysia and help more refugees enter Australia in a more orderly and timely manner. This in the end is both practical and humane.

We also need to think about why we had a sudden spike of drownings in the last few years. In one coronial inquest into the drownings of over 100 people in 2012, the coroner was highly critical of the lack of response from Australia to repeated calls for help. The first call for assistance was received by Australian Rescue Centre on 19th June, but these calls for help were dismissed as chatter and ignored. The boat sank on 20th June and survivors were retrieved on 21st June. The Maritime Safety Authority was monitoring the boat the whole time. It is sad to say, but you have to ask why was this allowed to happen? Why did we ignore cries for help?
Coroner's report: http://sievx.com/articles/Kaniva/20130731Hope.pdf

Instead of humane treatment we hurt and punish people who need help most - ie people fleeing persecution - we lock them away on remote islands or if we do find them at sea we put them in lifeboats and send them on their way with no guarantees they will arrive back on land safely. What if it crashes into a reef or lands on a remote island with no water? I don't hear any concern for these scenarios.

We use the excuse of military operations to keep everything secret. Oh and our government is so concerned about the human rights and welfare of refugees that it has exempted sailors from criminal sanctions. Maybe our inhumanity is why so many naval personel are complaining of being traumatised themselves because they are the ones who see these people and have to implement these inhumane policies.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-02/navy-personnel-open-up-about-border-protection/5933260

Australia is a pirate state, hijacking boats on the high seas then locking up their passengers.

Give them back their boats and let them all go.

If they drown then it's their own business, at least they then die free with dignity.

<<An indigent state such as PNG, with limited infrastructure and facilities to process refugees, let alone resettle them.>

This is where the open-border types & their pawns the illegals reveal their real MO.

Refugees are supposedly seeking a safe haven -- not 5 star facilities. Yet its clear when people like Binoy Kampmark write it is all about the lifestyle the pawns want -- it is never over till they con their way into an affluent western country.

It's not an easy problem and as several people have pointed out, it's all the harder because of the several different agendas being pursued by groups not directly affected.

The core of the problem in-country is that PNG is not a nation, it is a fragmented collection of tribes, many of which are still essentially neolithic. Government is corrupt not because the people are bad, but because the tribal cultures demand that those who are elected must look after their wantoks first and the ones who promise most to their wantoks are the ones who get elected.

There is also a lack of education generally and a sharp distinction between the small educated class, many of whom have studied in Australia, and the rest.

The refugees have more in common with the educated class than the rest and if they were to embrace PNG as an opportunity they could do pretty well, while PNG could use their contacts and the drive that lead them to take the risks they have in getting to where they are.

Those groups that are stirring up trouble and fear among the refugees and the locals are not doing anybody any favours except themselves.

"How can we do this in a humane way?"

BJ, it costs nothing but money. Perhaps if you, and everyone who agrees with you, were to fund it, you could then then accommodate all incoming asylum-seekers at the standard that you think appropriate?

That would be a complete solution to the whole problem, wouldn't it? You could just indemnify everyone else against the costs - all of them.

Hand-wringing about how humane you are is actually just fake moral superiority. Fake. Pretending how much you care when you know perfectly well you're calling for other people to be forced to pay for what you want and they don't.

SPQR - how can PNG be called a safehaven for refugees? PNG is a poor nation with its own social problems. It is not a safe place for refugees. If refugees can be killed inside one of our compounds during violent attacks which the PNG police allegedly participated in - how can we guarantee their safety outside the compound?

Indonesia and Malaysia are not signatories to the refugee convention - there is no real protection there. Refugees are supposed to be safe here - but this is sadly not the case. We treat these people with so much contempt they have set themselves on fire, gone on hunger strike etc - they have tried words - they don't work - we refuse to listen with compassion or humanity.

These people are human like us. I am glad I was born in Australia - I have never had to leave my home to escape persecution. We are Australians purely by luck. Why do we fear and hurt people who come to us for help? We share our humanity - it is a shamful we don't show much - we have hardened our hearts - having a heart or being a do gooder are now derogatives - how/why has this happened?

People who aren't refugees should be sent back to their countries, but people who are in danger of being persecuted, have a right to expect to be treated humanely if they reach Australia.

Despite 10 years of propaganda that they are illegals - they are not. The worst you could say is they are unauthorized - but they have a legal right to come to our shores and ask for asylum. I don't blame people for believing the lie that they are illegal - if you say a lie often enough it becomes the truth - our politicians and media have much to answer for as they allowed this lie to be told for so long.

Hi Jardine K Jardine, if we processed refugees quickly they could be in the community, getting jobs and not costing us billions to keep them detained in foreign countries with our tax dollars. This is what we used to do. We had a huge influx of Vietnamese boatpeople in the 1970s and we weren't as rich a country then, but we treated these people with humanity and compassion.

The Abbott government uses tax dollars in ways that I think are extremely anti-social, like choosing to give $8 billion to the Reserve bank that it didn't need or ask for. It wants to give carbon emitters $2.5 billion without any accountability, rather than getting revenue from emitters via the carbon tax. $12 billion for controversial new joint strike fighters. We have funds for war, coal miners and banks, but we don't have money for health and education - hmm.

It costs $1 billion to keep refugees in detention - nearly $4000 a day! Now that is expensive!

We are spending huge amounts of money in ways that hurt people. We could do things much better and more humanely. We are a rich country. We should be able to do better for our own disadvantaged and for refugees. We can do this - we just have to ask more from our politicians.

Just to clarify that was $1 billion per year on off-shore detention - we are spending nearly $4000 per person per day.

@Jelly,

<<SPQR - how can PNG be called a safehaven for refugees? PNG is a poor nation with its own social problems>>

What a piece of gobbledygook Jelly!

If you applied this part of that equation <<A poor nation cannot accommodate refugees>>
The only countries in the world that could take refugees would be the affluent western countries

And, if you applied this part <<nations with social problems cannot accommodate refugees>> No country --including the affluent western countries-- would qualify.

Take your head out of the open borders advocates handbook of excuses and try and channel reality.

Bjelly,

Off shore detention is not a solution that anyone likes, but it is completely clear that asylum seekers getting on illegal boats is a guaranteed recipe for deaths at sea, and that almost any alternative is better.

While we might debate methods to deter people getting on boats, the only proven method of preventing people getting on boats is to provide deterrents ie, turning boats around and off shore processing.

At the height of the crisis nearly 1000 people were arriving a week, your proposed solution of providing safe transport will only work if the numbers reach hundreds of thousands p.a. which will overwhelm Australia's resources.

So unless and until there is a workable alternative to the present solution the status quo must be maintained.

Hi SPQR, These refugees came to us asking for asylum as is their right. We have a duty of care for them - they are human just like us.

If we as a country want to become people traffickers we should at least choose somewhere they will be able to live in safety with their families. This is not the case in PNG or Nauru where refugees have been physically attacked. Reza Berati died after being beaten and having his head crushed in one of our detention centres. 77 more were injured or badly wounded.

If they can be attacked and killed in one of our centres how are these people supposed to feel safe outside the centre? They left their own countries and families to find safety, we are treating these people as bad if not worse than the governments they fled from.

Hi Shadow Minister,
Isn't it strange how there have so many deaths at sea since 2001? I mentioned one strange case from 2012 where over 100 people died. In this case we know Australian agencies heard their cries for help and ignored them.

There was also the SEIV X case where 353 people drowned in contentious circumstances. PM Howard at the time falsely stated that the boat sank in Indonesian waters. One former diplomat suggested the vessel may have been sabotaged in order to send a message to boat people. Senator Faulkner was curious to find out exactly how far the Indonesian police trained by the AFP went to discourage people smugglers, but he was not given any answers.
http://sievx.com/archives/2002_10-11/20021022.shtml

Maybe we don't need to giving billions of of taxpayer dollars to corporations to detain people at the cost of $4000 a day but where detainees have limited access to clean water never mind other necessities of life. Maybe if we had answered distress calls we could have avoided many of these deaths.

Jelly,

Is there some factory that clones all your advocates …churning-out hundreds of durecell-like bunnies all mindlessly beating the same drum?

1) << These refugees…>>
They are not <<refugees>> till they are determined to be such. I love the way you guys have coerced & corrupted the discourse . So now we have European media calling illegals who boat in <<migrants>> . They are illegal immigrants

2) << they are human just like us…>>
No they are more likely humans just like Mr Monis

3) << If we as a country want to become people traffickers…>>
Please don’t feign contempt for the smugglers. You by your advocacy subsidize them.

4) << If they can be attacked and killed in one of our centres…>>
Again, you are twisting the truth. We have seen how these <<humans just like us>> behave whilst in Oz centres trashing facilities and attacking staff. Please don’t try and sell us on the line they are sweet little innocents.

Hands up all the people on this forum who either arrived as refugees or had close relatives who did...

An economic migrant is someone looking for a better life, which I'll bet describes the reason that the people you are descended from decided to come to Australia, SPQR. I wonder whether they'd be proud that their descendant, who benefitted from their efforts, is trying to deny the same chance to others?

It doesn't matter what we call the people on Manus, they are still people. Use of terms designed to hide the reality of the humanity of others is a long tradition, Sadly, it's not one that most people would be proud to own up to following.

I guess that must mean you're special, SPQR...

Craig,

<<An economic migrant is someone looking for a better life, which I'll bet describes the reason that the people you are descended from decided to come to Australia>>
Yes Craig , maybe, but they did NOT use the Refugee Convention as a pretext!

<<, SPQR. I wonder whether they'd be proud that their descendant, who benefitted from their efforts, is trying to deny the same chance to others?>>
Craig , the <<people>>> on Manus are more than welcome to apply under a dozen different categories of migrant entry –and take their chances like everyone else

<<It doesn't matter what we call the people on Manus, they are still people>>
No one is denying they are people –the question is, are they <<refugees>> as they purport to be!
Mr Monis was <<people>> too! And he was "thoroughly vetted and found to be genuine" ...and look what a wonderful contribution he made to Oz,eh!

<<I guess that must mean you're special, SPQR.>>
Thanks Craig, but Sorry, I cant say the same about you –you are just another open-borders clone

Let's think about your post, SPQR.

I call a plumber: "Help, I have water all over the kitchen, a pipe has sprung a leak."

Plumber arrives:"Hmmm, you seem to have pipes that are blocked because you've been flushing fatty pans down the drain you naughty thing. I'd love to help, but you told me specifically that you had a leaky pipe. You're on your own, mate."

I don't think so...

Hahaha sounds more like out public service

"Sorry sir, when you filled out this 16 page form you omitted to initial clause 1600b ...no. no. no. you cant change it . You will have to go back and do it all again and wait another 2 months for it to processed" :)

If it were just a few thousand people in desperate trouble, I would agree with BJelly and Craig. The problem is that there are billions of people out there who would like a better life. The US has 11-13 million illegal immigrants, wit Mexicans forming the largest group, at least until recently. There are 5 billion people living in countries poorer than Mexico.

According to the UNHCR, there are 52.1 million people who have been forcibly displaced.

http://www.unhcr.org/53a155bc6.html

About 18 million are refugees, and the rest are internally displaced people who could become refugees by crossing an international border. In addition, there are 3.5 million stateless people.

Before it toughened up, the UK got half a million asylum claims between 1997 and 2004, not counting family members who arrived later. Of these, 23% were found to be genuine refugees, including after appeal. 14% were granted exceptional leave to remain. Some of these were humanitarian cases who couldn't quite fit the criteria of the Refugee Convention, but often this was done because it was considered practically impossible to deport them. The other 63% had their refugee claims denied. Of the failed asylum seekers, only 24% ended up being deported. Pretty good odds, especially if they know that their home country won't cooperate with deportation!

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

See also from the Migration Observatory at Oxford University

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-uk-asylum

No doubt you will bring up that a much higher proportion of asylum seekers were found to be genuine here, but SPQR has put up references on how officials are advised to give asylum seekers the benefit of the doubt, and there has to be doubt if they have destroyed their travel documents and identification, and tell an unverifiable story that ticks the boxes of the Refugee Convention.

How exactly would you prevent us from being swamped, with disadvantaged citizens hurt the most? Numbers were increasing exponentially under Kevin Rudd after he abandoned the previous government's policy. What about the obligation of the foreigners to fix up dysfunctional aspects of their culture that lead to poverty and refugee flows? International agreements are not suicide pacts.

Hi Divergence, with so many people displaced by war and conflict it is a shame more emphasis is not put on peace and resolving conflict.

Dialogue, making efforts to respect and understand one another would go a long way towards peace. I know this sounds daft, but it is the only practical way change will happen. Many of our troubles are because of foreign bases and corporate interests controlling resources in the Middle East. If Western military bases were closed, and if corporations left or worked in true partnership, we would have less conflict.

Most of the people arriving by boat come from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. In the cases of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, we have either said their regimes are evil or have occupied them for over a decade to either improve their (a)freedoms or (b)to get access their oil/gas/poppy fields. We are one of the few Commonwealth countries not to take issue with Sri Lanka's alleged war crimes, but I guess their importance to maintaining sea lane security for petroleum and trade is enough for us to overlook grave human rights violations. These people need our help.

With millions displaced around the world, only a small percentage would choose to move to Austalia - we are so far from the rest of the world. We currently allow for 190,000 immigrants to come to Australia each year. I can't see us being swamped if some of those places are given to people seeking asylum.

It is frightening thinking there is such great suffering in the world, but like it or not, we are in this together. Wouldn't it be better to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem?

Being generous to those in need doesn't mean our disadvantaged would be worse off if we were serious about ideals like egalitarianism and mateship. Our government has billions for banks, coal miners and war, but talks of austerity when it comes to looking after the less fortunate like pensioners, the unemployed, students and the sick (leaners) hmm.

Divergence, when I used the plunger on my bathroom drain this morning I did so because I noticed that there was a blockage. I could have taken the wider view that you are promoting in your comment, which is that the people who use that bathroom all have hair which may fall out in the shower and therefore, by unblocking the drain I am removing from them an obligation to take care of their own hair so that it doesn't fall out and block the drain.

I like a drain that works, though.

So what would you do?

AN IRANIAN immigrant sentenced to eight years’ jail for raping a teenage girl The university-educated Mohebbifar, who came from a middle-class Iranian family, told a psychologist that Western women were “portrayed as whores” in Iran.

Amir Mohebbifar, 27, ¬pleaded guilty to the aggravated sexual assault of the 19-year-old woman in an brutal early morning attack on Sydney’s Anzac Bridge on January 16 last year.

Mohebbifar admitted he had pushed the young woman into bushes on a pathway leading up to the bridge in Pyrmont and then proceeded to rape her.

In sentencing him yesterday, Judge Donna Woodburne said Mohebbifar had preyed on a vulnerable young woman who was simply trying to get home.

With typical generosity of spirit our Oz government will happily fly any of these gatecrashers, who don't like Manus, home anytime they ask.

This is exactly what they would be doing, to get a wife or two, the moment they had permanent residency in Oz.

Manus is a lovely island, out of the cyclone belt, not big enough to generate a sea breeze, but high enough in much of it to generate a cool breeze from the mountains out to sea at night.

It offers many of the things people dream of for their retirement.

It does rain a bit of course.

Ok, I see there is a surprising lack of curiosity regarding how so many people have drowned off our shores in the last 15 years - don't worry, Labor and Coalition governments have been equally uninterested. Which is surprising when we know for a fact Australian agencies ignored pleas for help on at least one occasion which led to the deaths of over 100 people. However, there has never been an independent inquiry into these drownings, or other ones like the SEIV X where 353 people drowned, despite repeated calls for one. So we can scratch concern for drownings off the list of reasons regarding why we put boat people in detention - saving lives at sea is not one of them.

Then we have those who say they aren't real refugees, they are economic migrants - if they were this, surely we would see more people from Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, PNG. But we don't. Boat people overwhelmingly come from places we know people are being killed and threatened by organizations like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, repressive regimes like Iran etc - the very organizations and regimes we are fighting against. Normal people don't leave en masse from even the poorest countries, they have families and communities they are connected with. Only when people are attacked and fear for their lives do they leave en masse.

Then we have those who think Muslims are especially worthy of fear and hate. The problem with promoting fear or hate of any group is that it makes no sense - everyone is capable of evil. Evil can reside in those we least expect like priests, youth workers, lovable TV personalities, magistrates etc. I could find many examples of people who are not Iranian or Muslim who have done even worse things than Lego mentioned, but what would that prove?

If you need to tell yourselves lies to feel justified in treating innocent men women and children with such cruelty, could you at least make them better lies as these ones are too easily refuted.

Dear Craig,

<<Hands up all the people on this forum who either arrived as refugees or had close relatives who did...>>

From the Australian government's perspective, I was welcomed because it improved their economy.
From my perspective I arrived as a refugee and economy was the last thing on my mind (had it been, I could have done well anywhere).

I also know someone who arrived from Peru because they were traumatised by earthquakes. The refugee convention does not include this as a valid cause, yet by common-sense they ARE nothing but refugees and BTW, economically they did better there.

To BJelly.

Your accusation that Australian authorities deliberately ignored distress calls from ships genuinely in distress, I find offensive. It clearly indicates your contempt for Australian society. If distress calls were ignored, it was because of the well known habit of the people smugglers to issue a distress call five minutes after setting sail from an Indonesian port, in the full knowledge that RAN ships would try to "rescue" their paying clientele of economic migrants.

After insulting my country and my people, you then expect me to support your claim that the boat people are genuine refugees? Well, I don't. Tamil people who feel persecuted in Sri Lanka need only return to their own homeland which is just 160 Klms away. The Iraqis and Afghans who feel oppressed by ISIL or the Taliban can support their own governments, and fight against them instead of having white Europeans do the job for them. The Iranians wanted a theocracy and they got one. Now they can live with the consequences. If the Iranians could forcibly remove the Shah, they can forcibly remove the mullahs if they want to.

Muslims are worthy of fear and hate because their holy book instructs them to be offensive to non Muslims. And in western countries, they are doing exactly as instructed.. High rates of welfare dependency and criminal behaviour, Muslim rape epidemics in every western society foolish enough to import them, teachers too frightened to teach Muslim boys, car crashes galore because Muslim men drive like kamikaze pilots on crack, and now terrorism.

The times, they are a changin', BJelly. The Europeans are being swamped by legal and illegal immigration which is causing serious social problems and bankrupting their economies. Far right parties are in the ascendency because ordinary people are sick and tired of moralising people like yourself, who want white western countries to commit social suicide through immigration. If the only people willing to fight for their own people are the far right, then people like yourself who obviously despise your own people, are enhancing the far rights reputation among western people.

BJelly,

With all due respect I asked you only one question. Can you come up with an alternative to the boat turn backs and off shore processing that won't lead to thousands of deaths as occurred under Labor?

Clearly you can't.

Siev X sank 70km off Java in international waters, and within Indonesia's search and rescue zone, and the disaster was the trigger for the coalition to try and stop the deaths by drowning. This lead to the pacific solution which was effective and stopped both the boats and people drowning.

The proof of this was that once Labor relaxed the PS, the boats started coming again and people started dying. This lesson was learnt even by labor who reinstated off shore processing at Nauru and Manus.

SM,

"I always wonder at the mind of the far left whinger, and its capacity to completely ignore or green wash out inconvenient facts even huge glaring ones such as the thousands of men women and children struggling and screaming helplessly before breathing in water and suffocating horribly."

So in light of your above comments, you appear to be saying that Australians as civilised people have correctly set up a system whereby we psychologically torture thousands of people in camps. Where we set up a processing centre which does almost no processing. Where we imprison children and adults in humid tropical locations, in ammentities that range from tents to run down buildings, which (from the many photos) are dirty and in a state of neglect. Where health outcomes are dubious, and medication is strictly rationed.

I mean, from the standpoint of Australians considering themselves advanced and upholders of civilised values - How did we get to the stage where to ostensibly save people from drowning, we give ourselves gold stars for terrorising the leftover flow in barbwire camps - as a deterrent to others.

I was raised to believe that Aussies had died fighting people who did these things to others.

Other cultures, more depraved, locked people up in putrid conditions, threatened refoulement, humiliated them and took away their hope and dignity - not us - not civilised Australia.

I have a huge problem knowing that Australia runs what amount to concentration camps on Manus an Nauru - almost no processing takes place. These places should be an abomination to any country that calls itself civilised...and what do we get instead? Cheers and plaudits from many Australians celebrating our depravity - and excusing our blatant sadism by squeaking "there's no-one drowning".

And believe me, I'm just as concerned about Australia's loss of humanity - as I am any other aspect of this.

THIS FROM LEGO'S POST ABOVE IS HIGHLY NOTABLE:

<<AN IRANIAN immigrant sentenced to eight years’ jail for raping a teenage girl The university-educated Mohebbifar, who came from a middle-class Iranian family, told a psychologist that Western women were “portrayed as whores” in Iran>>

Hmmmmm! now if Anglo-Ozzie had made that point the PC brigade would be up in arms.

Hi Shadow Minister,
I think a good start would be to investigate why so many people started to drown in recent times. Some people find it offensive to ask these difficult questions as it suggests we may have done wrong. I don't know if we have created a culture of letting things happen or not - that is where an investigation would be useful and also would provide practical suggestions to improve our procedures which could decrease the number of refugees drowning at sea. I know from reading the coroner's report about the Christmas Island tragedy our navy recognizes its role in monitoring vessels, but is less clear about its SOLAS (Safety of Life At Sea) obligations. That could be looked at.

The truth is people will flee persecution - they can only be stopped by force and cruelty as Operation Sovereign Borders has proved.

I love my country too. But I am not blind to the fact that everyone is capable of evil and wrongdoing. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

People who are being threatened by their state have a right to leave that state. It is weird but states who abuse their citizens often like to torture them but won't allow them to leave - sounds an awful lot like an abusive relationship doesn't it? We don't expect the abused to fight their abusers - we think it is best they be allowed to leave and find safety. The Refugee convention recognises this and provided a way for people to escape persecution. States that say they value concepts like human rights should follow through and put their ideals into action - to do otherwise is hypocrisy.

As I stated before, IMO the best way to solve the problem practically and humanely is to work with Indonesia and Malaysia and help our neighbouring countries by lessening their load, and by processing refugees in a more efficient, orderly and humane way. This to me is a win win - it increases co-operation and it lessens human misery. Anything else is putting our fingers in our ears and going "lalala"

BJelly,

Everything that goes wrong in the world is not the fault of the West. I am not condoning bad behavior by transnational corporations or the military adventures of Bush et al., but people have been driving out and killing each other since before there were modern humans. The basic problem is Malthusian trap societies - virtually everyone before the 20th century. The world's trouble spots today are mostly still in the Malthusian trap or have only recently left it. In such societies, people "multiply beyond their means of subsistence", as Charles Darwin put it, and often make their situation worse by overexploiting their environment and by other forms of mismanagement.

A graph of human well-being over time in such a society is a downward sloping curve, punctuated by occasional spikes where new crops or new technology have expanded the carrying capacity, or where some disaster has pruned back the population. The good times never last, however, because they just result in more and more mouths to eat up any surplus. This article by Prof. Paolo Malanima shows that an Italian labourer had to work half again as long for bare subsistence in the 19th century as in the 15th after the Black Death ("the Golden Age of the worker"), despite 400 years of technological progress.

http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Articles/Wages_%20Productivity.pdf

Eventually (if there is no collapse), the curve levels out due to higher death rates, and because the market for labour has collapsed and the ratio of people to land has become so high that not even slave labour can add enough production to pay for itself. This changes children from nice little earners to expensive luxuries. People get serious about controlling their numbers, often in very brutal ways before modern contraception. If there is no strong central government to stop them, people try to drive off or kill their neighbours, often under the pretext of sectarian or ethnic differences, but other excuses can always be found if these ones won't do - social class, politics, etc. The immoveable property of all those Hazara refugees now belongs to someone else.

(cont'd)

Yes the SIEV X was in international waters, but it was in waters where Australia under Operation Reflex was conducting intense surveillance. It is still not clear how it was not detected and how it could take so long to find survivors. There were calls for an independent inquiry, but it never happened - why?

Senator Faulkner had grave concerns about what might have happened - as his license to kill speech shows. The last couple of minutes are chilling.
http://sievx.com/sound_clips/20020925Faulkner.mp3

I am curious about how and why incidents like the SIEV X happened. We live in an age of mobile phones, GPS etc - people who know more about these matters think it is strange too - it is a shame they aren't being given answers to simple questions.

(cont'd)

There is a huge literature on this among archaeologists and economic historians, such as Steven LeBlanc, Lawrence Keeley, Azar Gat. Gregory Clarke, and Peter Turchin, who has an article explaining some of his ideas in Aeon.

http://aeon.co/magazine/society/peter-turchin-wealth-poverty/

There are many more references in Steven Pinker's "Better Angels of our Nature". In Steven LeBlanc's "Constant Battles", he explains how he was disillusioned early in his career by excavations in the American Southwest. Far from peaceful, noble Indians living in harmony with their environment and with each other, he found fortified towns, widespread environmental damage, whole villages massacred and the bodies left unburied, and male death rates in battle of at least 25%. This was well before the arrival of any Europeans. It was like that all over the world, regardless of race, religion, culture, etc.

Allowing your country to be used as a sink for the population overflow of Malthusian trap societies is obviously not a sustainable solution. While we could take more refugees without blowing out our population, it simply isn't credible that numbers wouldn't explode if we were seen to have the welcome mat out. Change can only come from within.

While the refugee claims are coming from the trouble spots (and they would be given short shrift otherwise), they are not all necessarily genuine.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/22/1029114162991.html

Don't talk rot Poirot, with this "I have a huge problem knowing that Australia runs what amount to concentration camps on Manus an Nauru"

Talk about emotive rubbish, it makes you sound very dark green.

Those detainees can leave any time they like, just at the request of the majority of real Ozzies, they can't come here. They will be overwhelmed with help to get their gear packed, the moment they ask for repatriation. That's a pretty strange way to run a concentration camp isn't it?

Yes, Hasbeen...for example it, must warm the cockles of a Syrian asylum seeker's heart to know that at the drop of a hat they could pop back home for a bit of barrel bomb therapy.

It's akin to saying: "Here you go mate - you can either jump straight off the cliff or go over the waterfall."

I suppose you also think that people make perilous journeys in boats because they want to see the world.

(At least you held back from your one time remedy posted on this forum - of locking asylum seekers in rooms with knives)

You're a great representative of the ebbing humanitarian integrity of collective Australia - and the fearful insular attitudes which accompany it.

Divergence, thanks for a great summation of the problem. As you say, change can only come from within, but the impetus for that change and support for it can come from outside. The great revolutions in France and the US as well as the breakdown of the feudal social organisation in other parts of Europe were all to some extent supported/fostered by external forces.

The biggest impetus was provided by the example of others, especially the US. People, like goats, horses, sheep or any other group species are much easier to pull than to push.

The problem for people who want to lead other people is that doing the pulling requires being in front...

Poirot, much as I don't want them here, there is not a Muslim on earth I am frightened of.

No it is people like you that scare the tripe out of me. People who vote in our elections, obviously do have a brain, but refuse, like a stubborn mule to use it.

Hasbeen,

"Poirot, much as I don't want them here, there is not a Muslim on earth I am frightened of.

No it is people like you that scare the tripe out of me."

Yeah, mate....like all swaggering blowhards, you don't so much scare me, as leave me mildly amused.

Good post, Divergence.

The degree to which people from ANY culture will accept people from another race, religion or culture as “one of them” depends upon many different factors.

The bottom line is, that there is not a race, religion, or culture on planet Earth that wishes to be destroyed or subjugated in its own claimed territory by people from another race, religion or culture. That is a cultural universal. It is not just limited to “racist” white people.

The degree to which any race, religion or culture will accept others depends upon

1. Prosperity. People living on the edge of starvation are not noted for their tolerance of outsiders who trespass upon their territories to help themselves to the resources which the primary group considers vital for their own communal survival. One example of that was displayed in the brilliant David Lean movie “Lawrence of Arabia” where “Howeitat” “Sherif Ali” played by Omar Sharif shot dead Lawrence’s “Hazim” guide for drinking at a “Howeitat” well. Sharif tells Lawrence.

"He was nothing. The well is everything. The Hazim may not drink at our wells. He knew that."

2. The degree of difference between the cultural values of the different cultures. Where cultural differences are mutually exclusive, one culture must dominate the other. That is as immutable as the law of gravity. Provided that the minority culture accepts that some of their treasured cultural beliefs are considered wrong by the host society and does not attempt to practice them surreptitiously, then a high degree of acceptance can be obtained.

3. The degree to which any minority group steadfastly maintains its own cultural identity and maintains almost exclusive social connections within their own race, culture and religion, reduces the degree of acceptance and tolerance from the primary culture.

4. The group behaviour of the minority race, religion or culture is another very strong indicator of whether tolerance or acceptance can be achieved. Where members of any minority culture display vastly greater propensity towards criminal behaviour or welfare dependency than the primary culture, it is unlikely whether acceptance or tolerance can be obtained

5. Population birth rate differentials. Where population differentials between minorities and majorities are changing, either through birth rate differentials or immigration, there is not a majority race, religion or culture on planet Earth who would not be concerned about this.

Intelligence differentials. All communities layer their social strata according to intelligence, with the more intelligent usually inhabiting the upper classes. Even within close knit communities, little social interaction occurs between the different classes due to the differing intelligence levels and different types of intelligences. Birds of a feather just keep flocking together.

If social division exists even within close knit communities based upon intelligence. How much do you think any race, religion or culture will ignore the fact that another, less successful and not to bright minority does not measure up to their social standards? Could I submit that whites and Asians generally get along OK because people from these groups have generally identical intelligence levels?

We are bringing people into this country at such a rate that I understand that my unique and successful culture WILL be swamped unless I disregard my inclination to be tolerant and become intolerant. I don’t think that it is a noble idea self suicide my culture because some stupid people see tolerance as a moral absolute.

Furthermore, we are bringing people into this country who’s consider their racial, religious and cultural identity to be uppermost, who’s cultural values are reprehensible, who’s behaviour is unacceptable, and who are not very bright.

Could I accept a black Zulu as an Australian?

Yes, I could. Provided that the Zulu stopped calling himself a Zulu, adopted Australian cultural values, had a level of intelligence similar to my own, obeyed the law, was a productive member of society, did not live in Zulu ghettoes celebrating Zulu culture, and if his race was not in danger of outbreeding mine.

Failing that, he would have as much chance or being accepted as “Australian” has of being accepted as a Zulu.

Hi Divergence,
Thanks for your comments and reading material. I am interested in increasing my understanding of the world and I have taken your points on board.

I hope I have understood you correctly - I think the main thrust of your argument is that with too many people we destroy our environment and we have lower wages etc. So in order to avoid these things we should keep a lid on population growth. Also, people in poor countries are poor because their cultures don't allow them to manage their affairs in a rational way. And from these 2 ideas we should limit people coming from poor countries or refugees who come from cultures different to our own. I hope I haven't misrepresented your views.

I just want to say that I am not anti-US - I love its stated values of freedom, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. I love its people and its pop culture. What I have problems with is the hypocrisy of its government.

Along with the reduction of immigration, Peter Turchin also mentions that during the new deal era, although corporations initially rejected it, they came to see the benefits of paying more tax, working with unions etc - it created a much more stable society. They had become tired of dealing with social unrest, and feared revolution. It wasn't until the 1980s that a new generation started to dismantle, many of the reforms of the new deal. Things like tax cuts for the rich (Trickle down theory), Glass-Steagall, off-shoring jobs. So our reducion in wages, job security, welfare system are not just caused by migration - it has a lot to do with lowering taxes, dismantling social welfare, off-shoring and automating jobs for the benefit of corporations, not for the broader society. Our system is anti-social and pro-money. That is why stock prices in companies go up when they sack workers or send jobs off-shore.

Then there is the problem of people from poor countries wasting their wealth because of their backwards cultures - corruption, over-breeding.

Regarding over-population - when with the Catholic church allow contraception? Also we know that women if they are educated and given economic power, they will have fewer children. Win win!

These are real problems, but we have a part to play in the way things are. The US has used the CIA, NSA, and military to eliminate democratic governments (Mossadegh Iran 1950s, Lumumba, Congo 1961 the list goes believe me.) According to a self described economic hitman, John Perkins, they also use economic hitmen and jackals to persuade leaders of poor countries to take loans, if that doesn't work they assassinate them (Roldos, Ecuador). These loans make the leaders rich, but don't benefit the poor - they use the loans to build infrastructure to allow corporations to extract resources, but don't benefit the mass of people. Then when they can't pay the loan they insist of privatising water and other utilities.

We in the West are good at extracting resources from the poor. The US makes up 5% of the worlds population but consumes 25% of its resources. If you reject my explanation,(use of economic hitmen, threat of military force) how does that happen?

So yes,there is mass corruption in many 3rd world or developing countries, but it isn't only because of weaknesses in their culture, every culture has its strengths and weaknesses, but it has a lot to do with how our globalized economy works.

Yes we have always fought for resources. And I think in a world with more people and dwindling supplies of clean water, air, arable land, fish stocks we will have many more wars to come - remember Cheney, Cameron and other have said this "War on Terror" is open ended and will last decades. A decade in, and we aren't seeing a lot more freedom - rather the reverse (here and abroad), but we are seeing consolidation of corporate power. hmm.

BJelly,

Instituting an inquiry into the deaths at sea is like an inquiry into road accidents. There are different reasons for each incident and the statistics have been known even prior to 2008 are that roughly 4% of those getting on illegal boats will perish. Deaths at sea are in close correlation with the boats on the sea.

While there is an opportunity to make roads, cars and driving safer, controlling the criminals behind human trafficking is out of reach of Australians. The only proven option to prevent deaths at sea is to stop the asylum seekers getting onto these dangerous and illegal boats. Under Labor between 1200 and 2000 people perished at sea with no deaths at sea under the coalition since the pacific solution was implemented.

There is a saying that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest. Similarly, the coalition's present policy is the worst solution except for all the rest.

"There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat."

A total of 58,000 (what are called) "illegal immigrants" in Australia have arrived by plane - and three in four of the 58,400 (what are called) "visa overstayers" came on tourist or holiday-working visas; one in seven arrived as students and one in 15 disappeared after being granted temporary residency.

These figures came from the Advertiser Newspaper 2011, during the Labor Government - and (the practice of entering Australia via airline, (with the intention of trying to stay here) occurred during Liberal Party periods.

However (both political parties), the media and many in the community have ignored this. The media has a lot to answer for, after all showing someone walking through an airport is boring and proving who is undertaking illegal entry difficult.

The countries where these people are coming from are shown on a map on the page.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050?nk=48da37fc4558948adb1aabe5f53915e5

Also political parties have taken advantage of refugees, who come via boat (which is very unsafe), for political point-scoring - and yet ignore those who come via plane.

I've spoken to people (living in Australia who'd come from well off European countries), telling me how living there was dull, grey, boring, lifeless.... and I was shocked. These countries look wonderful on television. I questioned myself later, on going to some of these countries on a holiday. So many people want to live in Australia - it's fantastic in many ways - however we can't take in every person from elsewhere.

I believe we can cut down on "business immigration", work towards assisting people here - and increase humanitarian intake - that being refugees. At the same time however we must not "devalue" poorer countries, which many are at present. We can help in the areas of foreign aid (which has been recently cut), advocate for basic democratic government and push for better human rights - to see these countries advance positively - and protect the environment worldwide.

An excellent interview on population can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4zKeRzi6sk

@Nathan

<<A total of 58,000 (what are called) "illegal immigrants" in Australia have arrived by plane...
However (both political parties), the media and many in the community have ignored this...>.

NATHAN, NATHAN, NATHAN, NOT TRUE!

Where have you been for the last ten years?

EVERY-TIME --and i am not exaggerating. EVERY-TIME any discussion is had about those dastardly, sneaky, illegal boaties, someone, or a whole gaggle of someones from your pond honks: Whaaaa what 'bout those who come by plane?

Mind you, they dont really give a stuff about the airborne illegals they just want to push the line that everyone is down on their favourites the boaties. It simply aint true that nothing is being done.If you are genuinely interested (and seriously doubt it) please go back over threads of this sort on OLO --all the rebuts will be there for you to see :)

So now you can move on to the next one in the Mother Goose book of bleedin heart excuses :-p

Some interesting comments. BJelly, mass migration is obviously not the only tactic that the elite use against the majority of the population. See economist Dean Baker's "The End of Loser Liberalism" (available as a free e-book) for details on many of the others. Nevertheless, I think that mass migration is one of the most important, if not the most important one. It drives down wages, dilutes natural capital per person, and drives up the cost of many necessities of life, such as housing. It fosters inequality and erodes social cohesion. Here, the concern isn't that the folk at the top have more consumer trinkets, but that the people who have the wealth can use it to buy governments and tilt policy even more in their interests.

In general, people should be judged as individuals. If a poor black African from the Soweto slums wants to be a chess grandmaster and has what it takes, then he should be allowed to go for it.

http://www.enca.com/life/cape-town-man-becomes-africa%E2%80%99s-first-chess-grandmaster

We could probably take small numbers of migrants from almost anywhere without serious problems. The ones from the incompatible cultures will have the host society in their face all the time and will either assimilate or get disgusted enough to go home. The problems come in when there are very large numbers of them, so that they can form ghettos and behave like colonists rather than migrants. In the case of refugees, as Hasbeen once pointed out, very often the only difference between the refugees and the oppressors is who lost. They can bring with them all the cultural baggage that made their home countries such delightful places to live.

Again, I don't condone the behavior of transnational corporations (which often have little loyalty to any nation state) and what the US and other First World governments have been doing, but these economic predators take advantage of pre-existing weaknesses in the culture. See this article comparing Thailand and the Philippines, which had similar population sizes and levels of development in 1960. Thailand decided to pull itself out of the Malthusian trap and the Philippines didn't.

http://www.pp.u-tokyo.ac.jp/courses/2012/documents/5140143_3b.pdf

Do we really want to accept people who resort to violence and emotional blackmail to get their way. Sure they may be fleeing harsh regimes, but then if they behave the same at home maybe that is why they have to flee.
Let us just accept the poor refugees who do the right thing, they are more likely to be good citizens. And let the queue jumpers go where they may.

SPQR,

"EVERY-TIME --and i am not exaggerating. EVERY-TIME any discussion is had about those dastardly, sneaky, illegal boaties, someone, or a whole gaggle of someones from your pond honks: Whaaaa what 'bout those who come by plane?"

Why write so strongly? Why can't some accept the large numbers (or any numbers of people) trying to enter and live in Australia, coming here by plane - compared to the smaller numbers that come via boat?

If I said - let's accept those (currently in detention on Manus Island) and allow living in Australia - would you? Probably not.

We can't just leave people there or "deny" that issue. Nor can we "deny" the issue of people entering Australia to live here (in general - including coming via airports) - because of work undertaken at an airport or a department. Such work, clearly needs reform. The figures are high (entry via airport). Assessment when entering via an airport is difficult. We can't target tourists, families or business people. Compare this to a "boat person" - the situation is easier.

What's the difference, if someone - for reasons I mentioned - but arrives via plane and wants to live here, compared to a person who comes here via boat?

Also if someone has a strategy (for say terrorism), they've probably already decided on that, regardless of how they'll try to gain access here.

My sister currently has a boyfriend from France. He's had difficulties, applying to live here, whilst on a working visa. My parents were annoyed and I explained why many from well off countries wan't to live here or weren't accepted. The Immigration Department is going to be more accepting of people from poorer or middle class countries, compared to someone who lives in luxurious France.

Yet Australia has youth unemployment as high as 25%. So acceptance of "business immigration" should be lowered. We can't take every person from every country, but we can allow increases in humanitarian intake and provide better assistance for poorer countries to improve.

Nathan,

I will agree with you on one thing the business skills scheme is too liberal. I have seen large companies import staff wholesale from the subcontinent. When we have the unemployment numbers we do, there should be a requirement to develop and preference local people.

Hahahahaha! Onya Spindoc. Sick'em, Fang.

Another good post by Divergence. Well written and well thought out, mate.Another bad post by Poirot. Comparing Australians to Nazi concentration camp guards will insult he people who's opinions you seek to change. Your Australian/Nazi implication will only be
credible among your own educated elite peer group who have been conditioned by peer pressure to accept that any Australian not in their own educated peer group are reprehensible people. Your position on boat people is therefore simply exercise in preening your vanity. Your peer group need to believe that you are intellectually and morally superior to the Great Unwashed, and to the business class and establishment classes, who's members probably include your parents.

To BJelly.

Australians do not need to investigate why so many people drowned in their quest to queue jump Australia's refugee program, which few would probably have qualified for anyway. Australians elected in a socialist government who needs an ever growing pool of welfare recipients to get elected and stay in power. The ALP is therefore very accommodating to "refugees", especially from the Middle East, because they will become the sort of electorate that can be counted on to vote Labor.

The word got around that Australia under Labor had become another soft touch western country that would allow anybody who wanted to live in a western country a valid excuse to barge in. The people smugglers knew that swamping the Australian refugee system with incoming arrivals would overwhelm the verification process which would be to the advantage of their fee paying customers. So 50,000 paid their $15,000 and set sail for Australia in unseaworthy boats crewed by minors, and some of them drowned.

But the Australian electorate hurled out Labor at the last election, because to many Australians are beginning to see the negative impact on their society of Labor's stupid policies. The Liberals have instituted effective measures which have destroyed the people smugglers business model. They can no longer guarantee to their customers that if they pay their $15,000 ticket, they will end up in Australia

We as Australians - "welcome" - all new people from all cultures, who wish to call Australia "home", please come through the front door. We (as Australians) abhor people smugglers, who ply their illegal trade with no care as to over 1,000 adults and children who died at sea. I applaud our government's stance in returning boats to place of origin. I have watched Parliamentary Question time over the last twelve months with Sarah Hanson Young and Greens continually berating amount of children in custody. I advise the following, the Liberal Government didn't cause this problem. They inherited the problem. I believe Howard Government had seven people in custody. When Labor gained government the flood gates opened for people smugglers to ply their trade - over 30,000. Sarah Hanson Young and Greens if you were really interested in children in detention's welfare - as opposed to continually negating any avenue for solution with current government - you would support government's actioning for return of illegals. I also advise I am a swinging voter - who has a heart.