ConservativeHippie

In the past Australia operated onshore processing and detention. The offshore option is far more expensive. In my view it was adopted for two reasons – to separate the detainees from media and activists, and to hold them in conditions so miserable they would cause outrage if they were imposed in Australia. This latter, as you say, is designed to discourage further boat arrivals. As Burnside says in the article Foxy linked to: “The theory is, apparently, that if we are cruel enough to people who have escaped persecution, others will prefer to stand and face their persecutors.” This is where Burnside, Toh, and many others, say is unconscionable in Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers.

McCackie

Have you stopped to ask yourself why anyone would risk their life in a dangerous ocean crossing to reach Australia? It is surely because their existing lives are so threatened or oppressed that staying at home is even worse. Your argument is equivalent to barring the windows of a burning building, to protect the occupiers from breaking an ankle if they jump out.

Foxy

Thanks for the links – interesting.

Foxy
"Why can't we have a rational debate on the issue of asylum-seekers. Why does it have to be a choice of - "you're either with us or against us!"

We are having a rational debate, and what we're proving is, that people like the author, you, and Julian Burnside are fakes.

"After initial detention, they would be released into the community, with the right to work, Centrelink and Medicare benefits"

While ever you expect people who don't agree with you to be forced into paying the costs of your fake concern for refugees, of course your hypocritical policy provokes anger and heat. It's you who are forcing the choice of you're either with or against us, because you won't allow people to disagree with you. According to Burnsides policy, that you agree with, people will be FORCED to pay for your pretended values, whether they disagree or not.

But you yourself aren't willing to pay for those things voluntarily, are you?

If I am mistaken - how about you prove it.

Sign and post back into this thread the Deed and Declaration that I have posted above. Go ahead. Do it.

If you don't you're a fake. Your concern for refugees is fake. Burnside's concern is fake.

*Real* compassion means you're prepared to accept the costs of your own publicly protested values NOT that you try and force people who don't agree with you into paying.

The reason there is so much heat in the refugees debate is because of the blatantly false shameless moral pretentiousness of those talking down to everyone else about how morally superior and caring they are, when, in fact, they aren't. They're just conceited show-offs, crying to force others to pay the costs.

If you're not a fake, post the signed deed. If you don't, or if you make any other response, it means we're all agreed that you're a fake.

Okay? Fair enough?

Hi JKJ

Your Deed should include the economic benefits as well as the costs of more humane treatment of asylum seekers. This includes much lower expenses in creating and running detention facilities: the direct costs of the border management program is about $4 billion a year, most of which goes on detention, enforcement and payments to host countries:

http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/budget/2015-16-pbs-full.pdf

Then there’s the indirect benefits: lower ongoing health and other costs, and higher taxes if they are allowed to work.

And perhaps we won't need our new Australian Border Force, costing $400m a year.

I’d happily sign up for a share of that.

Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

I stopped reading your post after the
sentence that you think the author, myself, and
Julian Burnside are fakes.

I don't think the asylum seeker issue is a fair test of the Australian character. People need facts to make decisions. The Australian people have had this severely limited due to an intense campaign designed to dehumanize refugees and mis-inform the population, which has lasted over a decade.

After 9/11, our fear of terrorism was heightened, and PM Howard exploited this by stating terrorists could be among the boat people. This was a ridiculous claim, as terrorists would never risk such a dangerous journey. He also made the false claim that refugees threw children overboard.

Then came more than a decade of journalists and politicians using the term "illegals" when referring to asylum seekers. Under the Refugee Convention, it is not illegal to seek asylum. By "criminalising" asylum seekers it is easier for decent, fair-minded Australians to accept the indefinite incarceration of refugees in detention centres. This framing of refugees as illegals means it is easier for the population to believe we need strong border protection to keep these criminal types out - Australians are proud to do our fair share to help real refugees, just not the "queue jumping" type - another eg of mis-information - there is no queue.

Then came the media black out of detention centres - limited access by journalists, lawyers and even politicians to detention centres. Information about refugees and the conditions under which they have been detained have been tightly controlled for many years. Recently it has intensified to the point where under the new Border Patrol policy, doctors and nurses face 2 years jail for speaking out about abuses in detention centres.

All this tells me that Australians only allow the mistreatment of refugees because we have been lied to and kept in the dark.

If the media and politicians stopped using the term illegals to describe asylum seekers and if there was greater transparency regarding detention centres I think Australians would be appalled . I think the Government knows this and that is why it is so determined to keep what happens in detention centres a closely guarded secret.

Murdering around 100000 unborn babies per year and promoting homosexuality by much of the media are two of the biggest blots on the character of our nation.