Hi Rhian,

So, IF

(1) the government was able to stop the flow of boats dead in the water so to speak,

THEN

there would be no more off-shore detention. Isn't that so ?

AND IF

(2) the government increased the annual quota of genuine refugees from the current 14,000 to, say, 25,000,

THEN

an increased quota could be easily filled each year by people who have applied in the proper way and waited their turn, in their ghastly hell-holes.

Well, the news seems to be that the Government has successfully accomplished (1). Now we can turn our attention to (2).

Cheers,

Joe

Conservative Hippie, I never thought you worried much about 'legal' asylum seekers who arrive here by plane, so I didn't count Monis as one of your dreaded 'boat people'.

The jury is still out on whether Monis fits the definition that most people have of a terrorist, unless you also want to call all proven mentally unstable people who murder someone as terrorists?

If that were the case, then we would certainly have many terrorists in Australia.
Mind you, not all people who murder others are mentally unstable of course.
But hey, you know best, right?

Hi Joe

If the government stopped all the boats – let’s say they built a massive wall around Australia – then maybe we’d need no offshore detention. Or, maybe the government would decide to detain asylum seekers arriving by plane overseas or terrorism suspects overseas. Or perhaps they’d transport the new wave of people arriving by abseil. Who knows? Scapegoats are useful.

A large part of the issue is HOW government stops the boats. Using the deterrence of indefinite detention in miserable conditions with inadequate governance, with no prospect of resettlement regardless of whether a person is a genuine refugee, seems to me excessively harsh. The means matter, as well as the end.

The only link between the number of refugees we take from authorised channels and those who arrive and claim asylum is one the Government has invented, to create an artificial conflict between “legal” and “illegal” arrivals.

Talk to actual refugees. In most cases, there is no queue in which people can “wait their turn”.

Hi JKJ

If the problem is the dominant paradigm, what would your alternative paradigm look like? How would you would tackle the issue without either offshore detention or community settlement burdening the taxpayer? A truly libertarian position would surely be one of completely open borders to refugees (and anyone else) but zero taxpayer support and “user pays” for services used, with citizens free to make charitable donations to assist refugees if they wish.

Also, do you accept that, within the “dominant paradigm”, the humane option is the less onerous on taxpayers and therefore preferable to the current system by your criteria? If so, and if you are willing to make the amendments to your Deed that I have suggested, I’d be happy to sign it.

Hi Rhian,

I think the point is: that the Government may have already stopped the boats: paying the crews to take them back may have worked - it's an ironic version of what they call in Economics 101 'the tragedy of the commons'.

I suppose we need to be very explicit: some people seem to think that, if crews are paid to turn the boats around, that there will be big mobs of boats heading towards Australia. No:

If the boats' crews are consistently paid off, and people who have paid big money, end up back in Indonesia, the word will get out pretty quick: for Christ's sake, don't waste you money. You'll be back here quick-smart, bare-arsed and broke.

The smuggling trade dries up: No more customers. No more boats.

No more back-handers to police and local authorities. The trade in 'refugees' and migrants in Indonesia dries up.

People stay back in their home countries, except for genuine refugees, for whom that means death.

Isn't that obvious ?

Suse,

" .... all proven mentally unstable people who murder someone .... " and wave an ISIS flag around, and shoot somebody shouting 'Allah Akbar', may be nothing more than common or garden psychotic supporters of terrorism. But being a psychopath and supporting terrorism are not mutually exclusive :)

After all, isn't it possible that many, if not most, if not all, ISIS terrorists are psychopaths ?

Joe

Hi Joe

I suspect the harshness of our policies rather than paying off people smugglers is the main cause of the drop in boat arrivals.

If it can be made to work, paying boats to turn back is a more humane way to stop the boats than the deterrence of detention.

Apart from a certain squeamishness about paying off criminals, I can foresee a few possible problems, though.

What is to stop the boat owners and their passengers merely returning then setting out again some other day?

It could start an auction in which boat smugglers raise fee to exceed government payoffs. The people smugglers might try to exploit both markets – accepting payoffs when caught, but landing passengers if not. If the payoffs are significantly more than the fees for people smuggling, it might actually add to the incentive to smuggle people. Unless the Government paid off every owner of a suitable boat in Indonesia, there would still be some boat owner with an economic incentive to carry refugees. And even if they did, refugees might set out from different countries in the region. Paying these off too could be even more expensive.

Still, creative alternatives are worth exploring.

Meanwhile, I suppose, the genuine refugees, for whom staying home means death, are someone else’s problem.

In answer to the original question. That Australians don't have much regard for those we consider cheats. That when confronted with those we think are playing the system we will go hard to try and stop them prospering from that.

Some assumptions/views on the broader topic
- Many arriving by boat arrive without valid identity documents but apparently managed to keep hold of enough funds to pay a hefty fee to the people smugglers
- Many arriving as asylum seekers are fleeing highly dysfunctional countries and cultures yet wish to cling to many of the same cultural/religious beliefs that played a major part in making their own countries such hell holes
- That the situation in Australia both in regard to opportunities for employment and the scale of our welfare system is vastly different to that which existed when the majority of the conventions covering asylum seekers were drawn up
- There may may not be a queue that's viably accessible to people who remain in camps close to their country of origin.
- Systems are in place that make it very difficult to board a plane to Australia then claim asylum.

R0bert