Yes the government has got it very wrong indeed by locking people, including children - and the 'odd' Australian citizen [only one, I wonder] - up for years.
This policy was done on the run and mainly for re-election purposes and it got out of hand.This pathetic mean spirited government is now in a bind. It cannot go back that is show compassion and decency with honesty and let the majority of the assylum seekers free. To do so would invalidate the tough or unmerciful stance they began with. By the way as I have no way of knowing - Just how many American, British people are locked up? Even this mean spirited mob would not have the guts or ticker to lock up their citizens. Of course neither the British or American government would never allow their citizens to be locked up in large numbers either.Yet there are a lot who have overstayed their visas I am led to believe.Regards, numbat

Tim, I agree with almost everything but do wonder why single women are included on the priority list. In what way do their needs differ from those single men (who do not appear to be mentioned)? I assume that fathers and mothers would be prioritised to be released with their children to provide care for the children and keep families intact.

Tim,
In order to get a handle on the size of the problem we need to know the median rather than just the mean time in detention, as the mean will be pulled up by a small number of people with very long stays. As you say, the number of asylum seekers here in Australia is small, and the overwhelming majority have been found to be genuine. However it is fair to point out that this is not always the case in other countries that don't detain asylum seekers. For example, in Britain last year there were 40,000 asylum claims, amounting to 800 people a week, including dependants. 88% were refused both asylum and humanitarian protection and 80% of appeals were dismissed. Not counting dependants, 50,000 claims were finally rejected last year but only 12,000 failed asylum seekers removed. These are Home Office figures collected by an organisation called Migration Watch UK
(www.migrationwatchuk.org). It should be noted that Britain is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and thus bound by the same rules as Australia. Your scheme would keep people in detention if their identity could not be established, thus eliminating one form of fraud leading to difficulties in removal, but some countries, such as Iran, at least until recently, won't take people back unless they go voluntarily. How would you deal with the situation of a failed asylum seeker who nevertheless refuses to go?

Your comment, 'The overseas experience of community assessment is that where participants have an incentive to continue to participate in the assessment process, abscondments are almost zero' is total nonsense.
The British experience has been that once detainees are let back into the community they tend to disappear.
Paul

One of the main problems I have with people who advocate a relaxation of our immigration policies is they seem to have no vision of how the world is likely to develop over the next 25-50 years. Do they consider that the factors causing illegals to want to come here will go away, that the world will become benign and peaceful, with the lion lying down with the lamb? Or do they consider, like me, that the world population will increase by around 50%, that conditions in much of the world will become far more desperate, and that if we relax our vigilance we will be overwhelmed by people anxious to escape to a better land. My main concern is that we will get to the stage where illegal immigrants will be declared to be enemy aliens, liable to be shot on sight with no questions asked, and that the navy will use their boats for target practice. The best way to avoid this is to maintain our current strict policy.

plerdsus seems confused about the issue here. The Howard government has been, and will continue to do so, increase significantly the number of immigrants Australia takes. The main impetus for this at present is a percieved shortage of skilled workers. For the past 200 years we have been a nation built on immigration. For the past 30 years we have not applied any racial discrimination to immigrants. So is it immigration or our treatment of refugees that concerns plerdus?

This post is supposed to be about humane treatment of refugees in Australia. plerdus refers to "illegal immigrants" but refugees are not illegal. Persons who come to Australia, whether by boat or by plane, and claim refugee status are legally entitled to have their claim assessed. These rights are protected by international Conventions to which Australia is a party as well as international and Australian law. Around 90% of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees and allowed to remain in Australia.

The issue raised by Tim is how we manage those people claiming refugee status while their claims are assessed. Under the current regime we lock up people who have committed no crime, subject them to worse treatment than hardened criminals and refuse to give any indication when they might be released. The government justifies this on the basis of being a deterrent to other prospective asylum seekers. It is unconsciable to punish people who have committed no offence to act as a deterent to others.

It is a sad reflection on the state of politics in this country when we have Liberal backbenchers and Dick Smith putting more pressure on the Government to change the mandatory detention policy than the ALP is.
I fully agree with Tim that it is time to address this blight on humanity in Australia. Mandatory detention may be popular with the Australian people but it is still morally repugnant.

As an approved migrant, who had to wait and stand in line, I find nothing wrong (or repugnant) with the current policy of detention for non-authorised illegal migration seekers (refugees come with papers which already identifying their status and we have a program which covers this category of migrant).

Illegal immigrants present a far greater threat to any Australia than simply being here and when the goal is to be free to merge into the population, community assessment orders basically reward their bad actions and would encourage a return to the past of flooding numbers.

The detention centre costs are based on a fixed cost manning and operating basis (the nature of delivery of the service). The only way to reduce the overall cost is to close some centres – suggest the capital cities be closed first – detainees will be fine at Port Headland and Woomera – at least that will discourage the enthusiasm of bottom-feeding lawyers too.

Oh and the overall cost of illegal migrants is not simply the daily subsistence cost of a detention centre. Alot of costs go into legal claims and challenges, repatriation back to state of origin, the cost effect of any illegal activities they may undertake whilst finding a position in Australia etc.. etc..

Another furphy is comparing somewhere like Baxter (detention centre) to Barwon (maximum security prison) – before making such a generalisation for the sake of hyperbole please present some evidence by way of daily orders and operating instructions which qualifies such statements.

Is it “humane” ? – well I am told a lot of people who live in Eastern Europe and the old Soviet Empire would find warmth, a water proof roof and a few square meals a day “luxury” beyond their wildest dreams.
I suggest you define “Humane” before you decide what qualifies.

Lets be very real and honest about this ! IMMIGRATION-is political.
Secondly, lets also realize with rubber meets the road honesty that a would be assylum seeker coming illegally to Australia has only to do the following to avoid lengthy detention.

1/ I am so and so, from such and such a place !
2/ I am of the this or that race, my village is 'this place' the head man is whosimajig.
3/ We have been hounded by the Militia such and such, and therefore fear for our lives.

I'm thinking now of how EASY this is in regard to my own wifes background in Sarawak, its not a hard thing.

With this information, the DIMA can quickly verify the veracity of the story, so one has to raise the question, if it is that EASY, why are all these people still in detention ?

ANSWER:

1/ They willfully refuse to give credible personal details.
2/ They disagree with the assessement, and the 'refugee industry' heavies kick in with appeal after appeal.
3/ Its not about verification anyway, its about my cousin in Sydney who told us what a great place Australia is, and I just want to bring my family here and share in your prosperity, and if possible, influence your political balance and system in favor of more like myself.

Now, the idea that detention has not deterred would be assylum seekers coming via Indonesia is not supported by anecdotal evidence.
There is no flood, because its HARD to get here now.

If all people had to do was jump on a leaky boat, zip across to Australia, and be welcomed by all the democrats, greens and assorted lefties who seem to consider them a source of additional voting power, then there WOULD be a flood. Half of Pakistan among others would be here.

Large numbers of uncontrolled migrants legal or otherwise, (controlled immig is fine with me) will eventually strip a countries dignity and sovereignty, cause racial strife, and social dislocation along with political turmoil. Ask the Ivorians, and read the history to discover why.

Col you sound s-o-o-o patronising (part quote) "A lot of people who live in Eastern Europe would find warmth, a water proof roof and a 'few?' square meals a day - luxury" Very glad you are not the immigration minister, though verandah limestone could probably use a person like you even if only for your compassion. Once Australians believed in a 'fair-go' for all, not now apparently.
In Australia the standards are or should be Australian standards. People should have our standard of life if they don't then, by our standards, they are being treated harshly. By our standards the present "health,prosperity and leisure camps" are concentration camps, remember I said 'by our - Australian - standards. regards, numbat
PS. A German Pastor once stated "when they came for the communists I did nothing because I wasn't a communist then the same for other groups of people then finally they came for him and there was no one left to help him" Now in the land of the "fair Go" First they locked up the assylum seekers, I did nothing because I wasn't an assylum seeker ETC!

numbat, if I understand your comment correctly "In Australia the standards are or should be Australian standards. People should have our standard of life if they don't then, by our standards, they are being treated harshly. " then it could be assumed that if you have a better car or home than me then it is your responsibility to fix that. Probably not what you intended but an extrapolation from what I saw in your post.

How far do you take that logic? How much responsibility should go to people and their cultures for their circumstances? Not easy questions.

BOAZ_David, whilst most of what you said in your most recent post lines up with impressions I have of the detention question I'm still left with with the suspicion that what we are doing has some big flaws. In a pragmattic sense I am very concerned about the impacts of detention on anybody we later let stay, looks like a great way to instil massive resentment of our society and institutions and a possible breeding ground for bigger social issues. I don't have good answers to this but the article raises some idea's worth thinking about which might lessen the resentment of those who stay (and their cultural groups already in the country).

I agree that asylum seekers should be assessed in the community.

Political refugees have fled from traumatic situations and locking them away only creates further stress and mental illness (I have first hand knowledge having had to take many ex-detainee refugees to mental health professionals).

Of course, building and maintaining jails such as Baxter detention centre, Port Augusta is extremely costly to taxpayers and when you factor in Christmas Island and Nauru... the mental and economic costs are enormous.

For both human rights and economic reasons detention centres should be closed and the metal they are built from melted down then made into playgrounds for children to play in. Those asylum seekers inside should be released into the community now where they can be assessed with as little damage as possible to both them and us.

I don't think any country should accept refugees if they are unlikely to fit into the society they intend to live. Refugees should be placed into a society similar to their own.

They should be discouraged from coming here. Why? Moving to Australia isn't solving the problems they are fleeing. In fact, it is exacerbating the problems because refugees are a safety valve for the world's tyrants. When the people flee, tyrants escape accountability.

So detention centres do have the effect of discouraging people from coming here illegally. As for Australia being a country built on immigration, get real. That is a very romantic revision of history, Australia was built on convicts and orphans stolen from there parents in Britain.

Robert, Miranda and Davo, you all gave different yet important sides to the issue.
Miranda, to your headline comment

"Political refugees have fled from traumatic situations and locking them away only creates further stress and mental illness"

I respond with a question "are they" ? (political refugees) or... well thats the point isnt it .. I reiterate my point, that it does NOT take a long time to make a few phone calls, or contact 'our people' in various places and get a quick idea of the bonafides of people who come here and say who they 'really' are. Detention keeps them under our control while we do a)health and b) security checks. I think even you would agree that until we KNOW their true status, its best to keep them under wraps no ?

Davo, well said. Our country was built on a lot of things, and immigration sure was only a small part of it. The 'migrants' came to a 'young country', they didn't make that country.

Robert, I do agree with your emphasis on humane treatment, but only after the initial security and health checks. Then, I would insist on a hefty deposit being lodged by any relatives or a community organization to guarantee they dont become an expensive risk to us.

1.
I'd just like to comment that at this moment there are still genuine refugees in detention and some have been in there now for 3-7 years. Obviously the system isn't working so it needs changing!

2.
Australia actually was built on immigration amongst other things including convicts and British children forcibly taken from their country of birth... in fact besides the original Australians already here we ALL came from somewhere else. Yes, we are all Boat People!

3.
I think political persecution is not easy to understand if you have lived your whole life in Australia so I'll give one example.

Imagine you were from an ethnic minority who could not work, study or even own a house/land in the country where you were born. Imagine if the government of that country wouldn't give you either a birth certificate or passport to travel out of the country of your birth. Then imagine if you walked down the street and feared for your life. Just remember this is the country of your birth. You have no birthright. What would you do? Remember you have no documents (the government won't give you any) so going to the embassy of another country won't help.

Get it?

4. We can have hostels for asylum seekers where they stay while being processed and can come and go. It is in their benefit to not disappear or they won't get a visa. It happens in New Zealand. All you need to do is get rid of the fence!

Miranda, can u please expand on point 1 of your reply ?
If they are genuine refugees, why are they in detention ?
Is it because the DIMA found they are not refugees ? of not this, why are they there ? Perhaps u would know more than me.

As for your portrait of a 'persecuted minority' I totally agree. The issue of birth certificate or documents is not what I was referring to as much as 'name', and 'location'. They know who they are and where they came from. If the story they tell is true, then it is also verifiable. They will have kinship ties with many people, and the government has enough resources (Including Asio) to sus out what is really going on in these places.

I make one important point in all this. Even IF there is such a minority, one needs to know firstly are they a LARGE minority and how does their population numbers relate to OUR population ? It is conceivable that there might be a group numbering 100s of 1000s in that category u mentioned. Such numbers would threaten our own political stability and social harmony. So, this bring me back to my major point, and that is 'control'. We have to ensure that we don't allow an 'Ivory Coast' situation to ever even begin to develop here.
(Have u read up on the History of that conflict ?)

I would prefer that we put political and diplomatic and even military pressure on the likes of Sudan, where there ARE not just hundreds of thousands but millions in the condition you described. Would you accept the whole of Southern Sudan here ? I somehow doubt it :)

Miranda, the crux of my argument is that people living in the troubled parts of the world should'nt simply run off to a western country. They need to resolve their problems sooner or later.

Detention centres have the effect of the word getting around on the grapevine that Australia is tough on illegal immigration.

More needs to be done for self help in some of these troubled countries, rather than offering an easy escape to a western country. It seems the most troubled countries in the world have the highest birth rates. So the problems are going to multiply if they don't do more to resolve their problems.

I refuse to accept Australia was built on immigration. Perhaps I am being provocative, but if Australia was built on immigration, it was immigration from Britain (not the Middle East, not Asia and not Africa). Australia now has a developed economy and developed infrastructure. You cannot just rock up on a leaky boat, and expect to live here. And then multiply rapidly and give us social problems.

In reply to BOAZ_David:

"If they are genuine refugees, why are they still in detention?"
ie. after 3-7 years.

When asylum seekers arrive in Australia by boat or plane they are put in indefinite mandatory detention. Then they are interviewed by a case officer who works for DIMIA (Immigration Dept) who asks them questions about their 'story', interviews them. Translators are sometimes available in the language of their choice. Often case officers are petty bureaucrats who have only lived in Australia and these largely under-trained individuals are the ones who decide if a person receives refugee status (we're talking political refugee here not economic). I have heard tapes of these interviews and some only go for ten minutes and often only a few questions are asked.

If the asylum seeker is rejected at this point then they can apply to go to the RRT (Refugee Review Tribunal) which is in fact one person only - employed by DIMIA on a short-term contract and who must reject a certain percentage of the people they interview. More...

I agree that years in detention is entirely unsuitable. It's bad for the asylum seekers and it's bad for the taxpayers. Releasing them into the community is totally irresponsible, as the British experience has shown.

The only way to get the asylum seekers in and out quickly is to speed up the Justice system. It's no wonder some are in detention for years when they and their blood-sucking lawyers (who make a very good living trading off their misery)use every available avenue of the Australian Justice system to stay here.

Genuine refugees are processed reasonably quickly, (of course there is always much room for improvement). Queue jumpers should be given no opportunity to disappear into the community.

Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants(see previous post).If they were illegal ie had broken any law then they should be charged, taken before a court and an appropriate sentence handed down. This never happens because they have not broken any known laws. If you don't believe this is so, ask the Dept of Immigration which law(s) asylum seekers have broken.

Interestingly, it is only asylum seekers who arrive by boat who get thrown into detention centres while their claims are assessed. People who arrive by plane with visas eg tourist or student, and claim refugee status on arrival are allowed to remain in the community while their claims are assessed. How bizarre is that. There are more refugees who have arrived this way than by boat but apparently we don't have to worry about them disappearing.

Treating asylum seekers humanely while their claims are assessed does not mean having an open door immigration policy. We have always had controlled immigration and always will. Managing an intake of refugees is just part of that controlled immigration.

The idea that we will be swamped by refugees is just ludicrous. We have a population of 20 000 000 in Australia. We currently accept around 12 000 refugees each year. This amounts to 0.06% of the population. What sort of threat does that represent to Australian society. If we increased our intake to 20 000 pa it would still only be a 0.1% increase on our current population.

Of course we are nation built on immigration. The last convicts came around 150 years ago and even before that free settlers were coming in their thousands. It is migration which has enabled our population to get to 20 000 000.
My own antecedents came in the early years of last century, mostly from the UK. I must own up however to having an illegal immigrant in the family tree. One of my great-grandfathers was a Belgian sailor who jumped ship in Melbourne and became a farmer.

I believe the diversity immigration has provided makes us the wonderful country we are today.

Miranda, if what your saying is balanced and accurate, then I would tend to side with you in regard to those assylum seekers who were so treated. (I still maintain the general principle of security and health clearances and mandatory detention at least for those checks.
Incompetance is not a good thing at any level.)
Perhaps the real challenge should be to resolve THAT problem first, and speedy throughput of assylum seekers should be the outcome.

Instead of these morons chanting sloguns and waving 'let me raise my socialist left profile' banners outside detention centres, they should be waving them outside the DIMA and be specific about such incidents as you are reporting.

I'm sure that the usual avenues are open to take whatever action is appropriate to remedy this apparent blight on our public service scorecard.

Have you written to the Minister or prime minister about this ?

I've written in support of policies I see as important, and that is one of them.

The problem with debating the issues surrounding refugees is that too often, it degenerates into a 'I'm not racist, unlike you' mentality. It becomes a competition of who can prove their non-racist credentials. Such posturing is meaningless and does not address the root cause of the refugee problem.

The same people who bleat 'free the refugees' also make excuses for insurgencies in Iraq. They oppose any efforts to bring democracy to places like Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of opposing U.S imperialism. In this sense they are contradictory.

Regimes that pump out refugees by the millions, are also condoned by the 'free the refugee' crowd. Instead of criticising Howard, why not pressure a world body such as the U.N to be more proactive in disciplining corrupt regimes? Detention centres have become a political rallying point for complacency disguised as compassion. As David Boaz has said: immigration legal or otherwise is always political.

Well there should be a simple test to enter "The land of Oz" Firstly ,you have to have a good grasp of the English language,be half intelligent if you're male and have a good sense of humour: If female,be sexy,good looking and highly intelligent,since they carry most of the genes for intelligence.How is that for a good sexist non politically correct statement.Can we stir the pot and excite some original thinking?

Numbat “Col you sound s-o-o-o patronising ..... Very glad you are not the immigration minister, though verandah limestone”

Think I am patronising because I point out the quality of detention in Australia versus free-living elsewhere – so be it. I guess we can assess where your views are coming from when you descend to exercising insulting “renaming rights” at the expense of the immigration minister (very childish).

As I said before – we have laws and “standards” governing immigration and those laws cover the category of “refugees” as well as “family reunion”, “skilled” and “business” migrants etc.

There is not an entry standard for – “those who seek the illegal circumvention of the Australian standards” – those who try fall into the “detain and repatriate” catagory.

These “asylum seekers” journeys to Australia have, generally, taken them from the place where they are supposed to have been “persecuted” through many other countries before arriving here.

I would observe - a genuine “asylum seeker” achieved their goal once they were beyond persecution – which they achieved far closer to “home” than Australia.

These so called “asylum seekers”, in deciding on their trans-continental journey to get to Australia, are in fact not “Asylum seekers” at all. They are “economic refugees” attempting to avoid the economic circumstances of their homeland. We do not have an immigration category “economic refugees wanting to jump the queue and ignore Australian legislation and protocol”.

So forget the bleeding heart garbage, it has no place in any debate.

I would suggest the standard of treatment in Australia of detainees, relative to the detention practices of other countries, would rank us at “worlds best practice”. I note community based programs are being abandoned elsewhere in favour of detention because they do not work – so why shift from the functional to the dysfunctional?

The “financial cost / success” of the policy is not simply in the “cost of detaining those who try” but the ”cost saved by deterring those who might try”!

Oh, come on. Australia is bound by international law to allow entry to people who seek asylum. Numerous investigations have showed that the claims of by far the majority of asylum seekers are eventually found to be legitimate. To claim that the majority of people who risk everything to get here by boat are 'economic' refugees is just rubbish - if they had the money, they would just fly here on tourist visas and overstay, like most of our 'illegal' immigrants.

The system needs to be completely overhauled and getting rid of detention centres is a beginning to this.

BOAZ_David - In answer to why people protest outside detention centres.

Yes, I have written to the Prime Minister, Immigration Ministers (both Ruddock and Vanstone), Opposition Immigration Ministers (Gillard, Roxon and Ferguson) and many others. Actually they are NOT listening which is why I have protested outside detention centres, DIMIA offices and in the street as well as writing to newspapers, leafletting and organising events re: refugee rights.

The Baxter 2005 protest shows the frustration of those who have and are continually trying to change the system and aren't listened to by the federal government. (John Howard doesn't even listen to his own backbenchers on this issue!).

BOZZIE - the law
Most lawyers work for nothing in the courts because they can't stand what Australia is trying to do to asylum seekers by the use of the 'deterrant' detention centres. So much for 'blood-suckers'.

Davo - political!
Yes, it is political because John Howard has used asylum seekers as pawns for his scaremongering and re-election.

Col Rouge - abc
a. The journey to asylum can involve travelling through more than one country.
b. Detention drives people mad as well as being enormously expensive and inhumane.

c. Just because other countries have detention of asylum seekers doesn't make it right or just.

I agree completely with Miranda on this, and will add one more point:

All of us owe the protestors for keeping the plight of the immorally detained refugees in the news. Otherwise, who would know of the gross injustices perpetrated, against these longsuffering people, by our Federal government for cynical political advantage?

The protestors are not 'morons', as offensively described by someone above (who has apparently not bothered to read much about the real situations from which most of the detainees have fled).

They are more correctly described as our embodied social conscience.

Australia and all the developed countries put together cannot simply take people in and solve the problems of 6.4 billion going on 9 billion people on a planet that can sustainably support perhaps 2 billion in modest comfort. We are not at the point of having to knock back genuine refugees, but we will be at that point if we abandon detention and for every real refugee get 8 or 9 illegals who intend to disappear into the community as has been happening in Britain. (Illegal is a fair description of an economic migrant who fraudulently poses as a refugee.) Because these people often have no or no legitimate travel documents it can be very difficult to deport them. To Miranda, Rossco, et al. where is your evidence that it couldn't happen here or can be easily prevented?

Rossco's paean to immigration deserves an answer. All nations are "nations of immigrants" if you go back far enough. There are cultural advantages to having some immigration. Science and the arts are international enterprises. Yet no large scale study has shown any significant economic benefit to the host population as a whole as a result of mass migration. Lower income people are badly hurt as they are squeezed between depressed wages and conditions, sky high housing costs, overstretched infrastructure and public services and shrinking open space. See "The New Americans", the 1997 report of the US National Academy of Sciences, the work of Harvard economist Prof. George Borjas (www.borjas.com), himself a refugee, and the studies cited at the Centre for Immigration Studies (www.cis.org). Some powerful groups, such as the property developers, do benefit at the expense of the rest of the community. The politicians are dancing to these people's tune and imposing mass migration on us because they care more about large donations for the next election campaign than about what sort of quality of life Australia will be able to offer in 50 years' time.

Miranda...
simple questions:

1/ "how many people would you accept into Australia who claimed Assylum" ? please put a figure on it.
2/ Do you see any political advantage for any particular group which may be perceived as 'pro-asslylum seeker' if lots are let in ?
3/ Is it posssible that the 'immoral' conditions of rather well built 'Immigration welfare Centres' (which u call 'detention' centres are partly a media beat up where the focus brought about by groups such as yours, encourage the 'guests' to perform outrageous attention seeking behavior. (specially some hard core fraudulent ones)
4/ When you protest, do you have the NAME of any political organization displayed on your posters ? such as 'Resistance' or.. 'Socialist Alliance' ?

5/ If yes, can you see why people could be a tad cynical about your real motivation ?

Garra “To claim that the majority of people who risk everything to get here by boat are 'economic' refugees is just rubbish - if they had the money, they would just fly here on tourist visas and overstay, like most of our 'illegal' immigrants.”

And from what I heard of the rates Indonesian pirates and smugglers charged, getting here by boat is not a cheap exercise either – the difference – airports have migration checks – deserted beaches do not.

Don’t bother with fanciful apologetics – they could get here cheaper by air but would be unable to evade the scrutiny of migration officers at airports – hence economic refugees attempting illegal entry and avoidance of migration, customs and health checks.

Which reminds me tuberculosis is a communicable and notifiable disease – and migrants are checked for it before they are allowed to travel here. How many epidemics of that or cholera or ebola or god knows what other maladies and diseases are you prepared to expose your family to contact with from an unscreened illegal migrant? I suggest you try thinking about what you are really supporting.

As for illegal overstays – when caught, they are deported likewise.

Miranda – abc?
Illegal immigrants put themselves in “harms way” – by attempting to evade immigration processes – we are not responsible for their stupidity or ultimately any supposed "madness" (such "instability" would probably be enough to disqualify them from migration anyway)– I suggest read the above to garra and learn before you post sentimentalist apologies for those who elect to pursue a mode of entry to Australia which is immoral and indefensible.

Their is nothing unjust, illegal or inhumane in detaining those who would choose to deliberately evade our legally constituted migration and custom authorities.

Col, we dont agree on all things but we SURE agree on this issue.
As for Garra and Miranda, depending on whether they subscribe to the Socialist Left view, or are members of any such party, they may well be of the ultimate view that "International Borders are barriers to workers" and hence "They should not exist". This is as fundamental to the 'International Socialist' dogma as the 10 commandments are to we 'godbotherers'.

Why anyone would waste their precious lives on something that has been repeatedly proven to be flawed is beyond me. It flawed because human nature is flawed, and eventually also, they 'tweak' to the fact that life is of limited duration, and now they have 'ALL THIS POWER' to play with, the romantic idealism is discarded as 'useful for a while' and the ensuant 'dictatorship of the empowered few on the politbeuro' takes hold and the poor old 'proletariat' is left in the food que's etc.

But thats where you and I usually part company :) I say "no system will be good, unless renewed people are managing it" and I'll also say that renewed people have moments of straying and need to have continual prophetic encouragement to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

Someone might say "what does this have to do with the topic" ? PLENTY, I see the topic as evidence of a political struggle by those left of Marx who will use 'any means' to justify the end.

An 'off topic' note though, sorry, about the funeral of the Pope. Did anyone notice how predominant 'Maryology' was in all the proceedings ?
Can anyone show me ONE example of Apostolic preaching of the gospel which includes anything about Mary ? (possibly that Jesus was 'born of a woman' is about as far as they go) The Cross on the Coffin was great, the 'M' there was strange. Some of the officials spoke of him being 'Welcomed by the mother of God'....I had teary eyes about the multitudes and the wonderful man, but this emphasis (Maryology) I find most disturbing.

Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia are locked up in jail for years without end for no legal reason. If you want to support this ongoing process it is on your conscience.

I will continue to work for an end to detention of asylum seekers until it is acheived, hopefully in my lifetime.

Boaz_DAVID; What the late pope's beliefs are/were is none of your business at all. As a matter of fact they could be seen as anti-scriptual. "Who are you to judge another's servant" or words to that effect. Do you BD have all knowlege, all the right dogma? - I'll answer for you - NO! According to the Scriptures the work of God is "To believe on Me and He who sent Me"and the late Pope appeared to do just that. It seems that God does not put emphasis on dogma like we mortal twits do, He looks on our heart. Could this Mary-man have more love in his little finger than you have in your entire body - I wonder. Anyhow this is not a religious forum so maybe I also have crossed the line. regards, numbat. PS No I am not catholic, not perfect, just forgiven.

Col: "There is nothing unjust, illegal or inhumane in detaining those who would choose to deliberately evade our legally constituted migration and custom authorities."

Asylum seekers do not choose to deliberately evade...to the contrary, they ask for assistance, and Australian law has provision to provide asylum for those fleeing persecution. To ask for asylum whilst on Australian land is lawful, it's covered under the Migration Act.

Maybe there is nothing unjust, illegal or inhumane in detaining people for a short period in suitable accommodation as happens in other countries. But indefinite detention for asylum seekers is uniquely Australian and will always be unjust and inhumane.

Asylum seekers are never charged with an offence. Although legal under Australian constitution to lock people up for their entire lives when they are innocent of any crime, this cannot be described as just.

When the circumstances of their detention result in such psychological disturbance that they go blind, or lose their ability to walk, this is inhumane. (As reported on 4 corners so maybe news to the general public but most refugee advocates are aware of these cases.)

How anyone can try and defend a system that drives people mad, that locks up innocent people for 3, 4, 5, 6 years and counting is beyond me. In January 2005 an 12month old baby born in Xmas Island detention centre was granted refugee status. Her parents had previously been refused as refugees. So the baby, a refugee, had to stay in detention. Only after lobbying and media attention, DIMIA decided the parents' were refugees too, granted them visas and the family were released last week.

Col, I agree there has to be a system to assess asylum claims - but not this one. It just plain doesn't work, is very expensive and very damaging. I'm with Miranda, and will continue to work for the end of indefinite mandatory detention and other cruel features of current system.

I see that this thread is just about exhausted. The xenophobes resort to illogical and unfounded statements, and odd evangelical red herrings.

"Col Rouge": you don't make much sense here, and I doubt that you have credible sources for your information. Presumably, if asylum seekers were actually "economic immigrants" they would be found out upon investigation. That this has not proven so in the overwhelming majority of cases in Australia, with or without mandatory detention, would disprove your argument. And with respect to diseases, many more non-Australians come here on tourist, business and student visas than do asylum seekers, and they are not subject to medical tests.

"BOAZ-David": in addition to making offensive comments about those who democratically protest against our immoral treatment of refugees, you also make unfounded assumptions about others of us who oppose these shameful policies. I am not a socialist, and my objection to our recent appalling treatment of refugees is not based on Marxism or any other -ism. The credibility of your argument is further weakened by the inclusion of an irrelevant and inane biblical quotation.

Well said garra,I think you may have closed this forum - well done. Regards, numbat

Maybe the post is nearly closed but I challenge the suggestion that is only "lefties" who are opposed to mandatory detention. Would this include the brave Liberal backbenchers who have openly challenged Howard and Vanstone? Dick Smith? Malcolm Fraser and John Valder? Most church leaders in Australia? Many prominent lawyers ane mental health experts?
Sure the Greens lean to the left but the Australian Democrats? And how about Family First who are opposed to the mistreatment of refugees on Christian grounds.
Amnesty International believes the current mandatory detention regime in Australia breaches human rights standards. Most of Amnesty's work involves seeking release of prisoners of conscience in totalitarian countries - it shames me that Australia falls into the category of a country which requires the attention of Amnesty International.
Still, judging by some of the comments posted I can understand why Amnesty would have concerns about the direction our Governent is taking us.

David BOAZ – that we agree is reassuring – I see the whole debate as the right of Australians, through the elected government, to decide the composition and quality of Australian migrants and to reject those who would selfishly ignore our migrant entry laws.

As for the lefties - they are too feeble and morally deficient to consider as mattering anymore. That battle was won a decade ago – all that is “left of the left” are the dullards who lack the sense or imagination to realise their day is past.

Miranda “Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia are locked up in jail for years without end for no legal reason.”

Illegal entrants who have deliberately evaded and violated migration laws are locked up but can expedite their release by accepting repatriation back from whence they came. The duration of their stay is within their control (but not the venue).

Shoshana – what is lacking is the “persecution” which you speak of – once they are beyond the borders of their persecutors they have escaped the excuse for further travel to Australia and economic hardship does not qualify.

Garra – hard to prove what someone is when they have destroyed their passports and other documents…and medical tests are applied dependent on where you come from.

Re xenophobes – you point fails - I see no one suggesting we disqualify genuine refugees from anywhere in the world.

The real difference is

those who believe Australia has a right to exercise sovereign control of its borders and decide who will and will not be eligible for migration

versus

the unregulated chaos of unmonitored, unsustainable anarchy in which people of any character (or lack) – criminally intent or otherwise, arrive by any means, regardless of their ability, suitability or desire to assimilate into this multicultural society of ours (one which disproves your fatuous claim of xenophobia)

Re Amnesty International - an informal organisation – which express an opinion – and I can disagree with it.

This topic will close when we all decide - the “leftovers” do not speak for me!

So Garra thinks he can call his opponents (or anyone who don't subscribe to his worldview) xenophobes and end all discussion. Just goes to prove racism has been emptied of any meaning, and is used to shut down any debate.

"Davo", I was neither trying to shut down the discussion, nor did I mention racism. I meant that this thread is just about exhausted of meaningful comment, and the subsequent posts by you, "Col Rouge" and "BOAZ-David" underline my point.

Given the lack of logical coherence in the posts by you chaps above, I can only conclude that they must emanate from xenophobia, which my Macquarie defines as "a fear or hatred of foreigners", quite a different sentiment to that of racism.

On the other hand, given that "davo" has in these forums argued against the notion of compassion, I'd be willing to concede that his heartlessness towards refugees is a product of a more generalised misanthropy.

I don't regard supporters of our immoral and inhumane policies towards asylum seekers as "opponents". Rather, I think that anybody who would knowingly support such cruel and unjust treatment of fellow human beings is also deserving of compassion from those of us with a kinder disposition towards humanity.

No doubt those of xenophobic or misanthropic disposition will try and maintain this platform for their unfortunate ideas, but I for one am now done with this particular thread.

Garra,

may wish to 'run' but its a pity you have left little of substance in your wake. I see a few shallow sloguns "immoral, Xenophobic, Offensive" I mean.. kinder garten socialists are good at that kind of thing, u know those full of enthusiasm and passion, but dont know enuf yet to actually deal with reality.

I asked some very important questions to Miranda, to which I've received ZERO response, perhaps because they are closer to the truth than either you or she would like ? You then come back with calling my investigative probing 'offensive' ? I'm trying to understand peoples position, so, I ask. Miranda has run for cover it would appear.

I've said a lot in point form, not hard to understand, to describe my questions as 'xenophic' does NOT answer the issues raised about political influence by small groups. Nor does it address our right to self determination and control of those who wish to come to this country.

NUBMAT.. special for u :) Listen, I'm not down on the Pope, seems like he was a wonderful man, I am concerned about the great disparity I see between the foundation of our faith, being the Scriptures, and the gospel as preached by the Apostles ; and the 'version' of the faith presented in Catholicism. There is little resemblance. The almost idolatrous deification of Mary, "mother of God" ? it sounded like His holiness was more looking forward to meeting her than our Lord. It is only a long tradition which can sustain such a self contradictory idea as 'mother'.....of GOD. And its not 'me' who judges, it is scripture itself. If u can show me my error from scripture, please do so. It is as much my business as it was Luthers and that of various others who opposed the selling of forgiveness which is still actually part of Catholic doctrine. Idolatry is praying to.... 'other' than God. "You shall have no other gods before me" -blessings.

My position is that we should close down detention centres and free the refugees as soon as possible ie. today would be good.
These people can continue their 'process' through the courts and the DIMIA hoops in the community - we used to house asylum seekers in hostels before the ALP brought in detention.

I also think the whole immigration system in Australia needs to be investigated and overhauled. If the system doesn't work, change it.

Every time I write a new post I receive a lot of responses and can only answer in 350 words while each of the questions I receive would take at least 350 words - to just graze the surface.

There is so much to learn and when I first found read about The Tampa incident in 2001 I wanted to find out more and joined a refugee loop on the internet and visited a detention centre. From the inside, from the very people who were seeking asylum I found out what it was like to be them. I found mental illness, hope, despair, suicide, self-harm, deep fear.

You, I, anyone reading this forum could be one of them. If suddenly you had to leave Australia you would be in the same situation. How would you wish to be treated?

Miranda. I agree w/your posts. Many posters here, some of whom claim to be christian, simply don't have any empathy for people who are in desperate situations. They can't imagine wot its like to lose your family and friends in hostile acts - many refugees don't even know that much about Australia let alone a waiting list they just want to escape and are then preyed upon by people smugglers.

To those who think that boat people are disruptive, Vietnamese fled to Australia not so long ago and they are a positive part of our society now, so are the many Europeans who arrived earlier. We are all migrants - convicts were involuntary migrants. And I don't see wot difference that makes any way. The majority of refugees are found to be genuine. To those who oppose them - how would you feel if it was you and your children locked up for years on end?

History will prove how heartless you are.

BOAZ_David “may wish to 'run' but its a pity you have left little of substance in your wake. I”

Spot on – barely a ripple … those oh lack Backbone to debate, prefering to “cut and run” can try to ignore all they like the majority of rational thinkers who hold a view contra to their own,

They are also free to delude themselves that the majority of Australians know nothing and do not matter – until, of course, it comes to those who vote and count in elections.

Miranda – I was born in UK. I did not just "arrive" in Australia, I went through the due process of acceptance. I have also lived in USA and had to go through due process of acceptance their too.
When someone respects Australia sufficiently to wait and undergo the acceptance process they are of a character which is lacking in those who decide to come without papers and without respect for the country which they demand house them. This latter group show no respect for Australian laws or the Australian community which they expect to accommodate them.

Whatever circumstance befalls them is their burden to deal with, not the Australian community which they have abused by trying to circumvent its laws and borders.

Those who consider that that mandatory detention of asylum seekers is effective in deterring whatever it is it is supposed to deter, presumably more "boat people", may care to note that Paris Aristotle, a member of the Immigration Detention Advisory Group and Director of the Victorian Foundation for the Survivors of Torture, said on "In the National Interest" (ABC Radio National Sundays 12:05pm) in early February that he did not consider that mandatory detention contributed to the decline in arrivals of asylum seekers.

Those who in any way wish to justify the appalling and inhumane detention of asylum seekers on any grounds may care to read the articles/talks on the website of Julian Burnside QC. And they might then think about what it means to be Australian and what Australia stands for, or used to.

What are the reasons for the conditions which exist in the countries from which asylum seekers come to this country? To what extent have developed countries contributed to those conditions? To what extent does Australia, allied with those developed countries as it is, have any obligation to do more than “process” those people seeking asylum? In particular, does Australia have any obligation, humanitarian or otherwise, to advocate not only aid but also measures which will genuinely improve the economic situation and particularly the situation concerning justice, in those countries?

In this, as in all matters, what obligations do Australian Government Ministers have to tell Australians the truth?

In this, as in all matters, what obligations do we have as civilised people, to treat other people in a civilised manner, that is in a manner which would be consistent with the fact that we are members of human society?

On Deterrence
Indefinite mandatory detention is damaging, expensive but doesn’t deter. In ten years from 1989 to 1998, there were 3072 boat arrivals. In 1999 alone, after mandatory detention had been in place for years, it was 3736.

Temporary protection visas (TPVs) for refugees were introduced as a deterrent but had the opposite effect. They don’t allow family reunion and there were/are thousands of men living in the Australian community on TPVs whose wives and kids have no legitimate way to join them, even after years of separation.

TPVs might have stopped more men making the journey but not the wives and kids of men already living here.

In 1999, 424 or 11% of boat arrivals were children, in 2001, the figure was at least 1578 or 26%.

(Split between adults/kids not available for all boats, source http://www.sievx.com/dbs/boats/ )

What most likley stopped the boats coming was when SIEV X sank resulting in the deaths of 353 people – 146 women, 142 children, 65 men - and suspicion about the lengths to which the Australian government would go to deter asylum seeker boats. Incidentally, our family-friendly government still refuses to release names of those who died on SIEV X. There are men living in the community whose entire families drowned when this boat sank.

There does need to be a system to process asylum claims, but not what we’ve got at the moment. Nothing justifies these deaths, or people left to rot in detention for 3,4,5,6 years.

Col Rouge, you were indeed fortunate that you were able to avail yourself of due procedures to access the USA and Australia. A refugee on the other hand is a person who is being persecuted, usually on racial, religous or political grounds. Often under threat of imprisonment or execution, they are in no position to go through proper channels to apply to leave their own country to go to another.

Can you imagine a person who is in genuine fear of their life from their government even applying for a passport, let alone being granted one, then applying for a visa or other travel documents to leave the country. That would guarantee retribution from the government.
We live such a comfortable life in Australia it is difficult to imagine that for some people the only option is to flee leaving behind everything - family, friends and property.
When people reach our shores in such circumstances, regardless of how they get here, we are obliged to assess their claims to be refugees. We are not obliged to lock them up like criminals while those claims are processed.

to clarify my previous post, boat arrivals means the number of people arriving by boat, not the number of the boats that arrived.

I'm also a migrant from England, I know what's involved in that. My brother in law was a refugee from Iraq in the 1950's, my step father from the holocaust, and others rellies fled Russian pogroms way back. Not comparable with migrants, migrants can safely go home.

"Migrants follow their dreams, refugees bring their nightmares."

The last three letters especially, and there were others,

beginning after col's loving, kind, from the heart considerate missive. Thank you it is great to know that there are still those who believe in a fair go. Then sadly we have those with little understanding or compassion. These are they that believe completely and follow our great honest, truthful leader. If these unthinkers heard howard utter the word 'crap'. Their over riding urge would be to find a toilet so to obey his greatness, thinking he had given them another command.
Yes I know I could be seen as a little crude, but better that than being miserable, mean-spirited and heartless - just like 'you know who'
PS. WELCOME! Shoshana, great to have you here. Regards, numbat

On the matter of the rule of law versus anarchy –

A number of individuals seem to be intent on mandatory detention being ended. They are, of course, free to urge their elected representatives to vote accordingly or stand for election themselves to achieve this end.

That our government has the overwhelming support of the Australian public behind its policy of mandatory detention and whilst we continue to live in a democracy, I suggest those who feel the incarceration of illegal entrants is inhumane, harsh, unjust, antisocial, xenophobic or cruel start to understand that their view is not universally supported and thus not automatically right.

Rossco – read my previous posts – your example of the refugee achieved freedom from persecution a long time before he commenced travel to Australia – thus the ‘reasoning’ you present of supposed persecution is no more than an EXCUSE. We have a refugee acceptance program BUT the ones you refer to are just queue jumping and evading due process. They may include criminal or other anti-social and nefarious elements – who knows unless their backgrounds are checked or checkable.

We do treat these people humanely (regardless they do not have freedom of movement to undertake whatever possible criminal or other anti-social or nefarious undertakings some of them might be used to - as I said - when you do not know, you cannot guarantee the quality of character of an illegal entrant)– but they are also able to assist their own circumstances but many prefer to simply make demands for entry and thus – defeat their own efforts by their own incorrigibility.

Bleeding hearts achieve nothing – other than leave a puddled mess for the rest of us to clear up.

Based on the number of posts in the past couple of days - it looks like garra was true to form -

WRONG on all counts -

especially the one where he unilaterally declared this thread finished - I just love it when the self-appointed "almightys" fall.

MIranda and Xena.
You r both looking at 'symptoms' rather than the deeper issues. If you want to be compassionate to 'alleged' refugees, ok, now here are more simple questions.

1/ How MANY will you allow in ? Open slather ? c'mon, no ducking and weaving. ANSWER IT.
2/ How is maintaining control and protection over ones national FAMILY lacking in compassion ?
3/ Do you see any POLITICAL advantage ? (repeated)

The 'evidence' that Miranda saw, I'm sure was true, to a point. I'm also sure that cunning people can easily attempt to take advantage of sympathetic outsiders who they feel will improve the chances of their desired outcome.

To suggest that to protect ones life and liberty and maintain control over those seeking to come here is a)Unchristian and b) heartless c) not compassionate, is an insult of the highest degree to both my faith AND my citizenship.

The need to accurately assess people who attempt to enter our country against our law,-yes, AGAINST OUR LAW (as in, 'until their true status is verified, they are not lawful') is being 'judged by history' how ? err.. How is responsible policy lacking in compassion ?

You think I dont know about being a 2nd class citizen and all those other things u mumbled about Xena ? well newsflash, I have a pretty good idea, having lived under a government in another country which treated me and the people I was serving extremely badly because we were not the right political 'flavor'.

I'd be a bit cross with you if your expressed views were not so 'trite and predictable' as though you have just left some 'newbie socialist' meeting where they pumped you full of the 'party line'.

I'm all FOR a limited time in detention, until status is verfified THEN I'm all for a hefty deposit from their community here to guarantee they dont run. Most who come here have large communities which include relatives, unlike my wife where u can count the number of people who speak her language in australia on your fingers and toes.

I am glad to see BOAZ_David supports limited detention time but I don't understand his proposal for a deposit to be paid by communities after status has been verified "to guarantee they don't run". Once refugee status has been verified and accepted as bona fide, refugees are given a visa and they are then free to go where they want. There is no question of them "running", there is no need so what is the point of the deposit.

Many refugees do get support from others from the same background but there are also very many true-blue Aussies right across Australia who provide assistance to refugees while in detention and after release from detention into the general community because they recognise it is right to help fellow human beings.
Hey, who knows any of us could find a refugee family as next door neighbours, we could have a refugee as a work mate or our kids could be playing with refugee kids at their school. Now that is something to look forward to isn't it.

Miranda is your typical aussie bleeding heart,where emotion rules logic.We cannot afford to be the recepticale for all the world's problems.If people like Miranda have their way,we will become just another "Banana Republic" in the South Pacific.Over population cheapens human endeavour and thus causes poverty, considering also the elements of education and intelligence, we have to be selective in who comes to our country.

Rosso,
by status I actually meant 'security and health' the 'refugee' status can take some time as u know, while there is uncertainty, they may toy with the idea of establishing roots and if rejected ultimately, they may go underground.

I'm also VERY doubtful as to why they have to come to AUSTRALIA through other countries which are culturally more suitable in many cases. (for Muslims) Compared to Malaysia, Australia is just about '3rd world' (been to the KLIA Airport lately ? and been on their fast train ?.. we putt putt shudder rattle out to TULLA in a crappy shuttle bus.. moan)

The fact that they come so far, through other countries and the clear evidence that many of them have close relations here points to the reality being of 'family reunion by stealth'.

No one has told me HOW MANY they feel they would allow ? Nor have they said what they will DO if there is a sudden FLOOD... (I didn't ask that but I'm sure asking it now) don't they think there will be POINT where u have actually do the same thing we are doing NOW ?

If not, then we may as well just go bush and give the country to the first group who decide to come en-masse.

"Suicide amongst pre-pubescent children is almost unheard of. Except in Australian detention centres." Julian Burnside

Boaz, I have noted in another forum your lack of christian charity. You failed to comment on the successful outcome of other boat people such as Vietnamese. You also fail to find any empathy. You would be just as desperate to leave if Australia had the problems of other countries such as dufur, iraq and many others.

As for how many should come here, as many people as Australia can environmentally support. This country has gained from immigration why now, would it fail to do so now?

I think you are threatened by those who do not have your particular religious beliefs. Muslims for example. Oh, yeah and anyone who is atheist.

Miranda “Suicide amongst pre-pubescent children is almost unheard of. Except in Australian detention centres." quoting Julian Burnside

Maybe that is due, in some part, to the absence of quality parenting.

Xena
"As for how many should come here, as many people as Australia can environmentally support. This country has gained from immigration why now, would it fail to do so now?

I think you are threatened by those who do not have your particular religious beliefs. Muslims for example. Oh, yeah and anyone who is atheist."

I agree with Daivd_BOAZ (on this matter) and if you read over my posts you will see I do not hold the same religious values as David (although I respect his right to exercise his as he sees fit). I have personal friends who are Musliom and others are Aethiests, a few Catholics and I guess somewhere the odd Baptists, Buddist and a few Protestants.

Like David - I do not care what someone religious beliefs are and I am not threatened by them
but

I do care that people respect our Australian Migration and Customs requirements, instead of flouting our laws to sneak in on a deserted beach to become part of an illegal undercaste.

I have never seen David post one word which would suggest he supports a racially or religiously biased immigration policy – I suggest you desist from making fraudulent implications for which you have no basis of claim – other than they differ from your own limited view.

Expecting people to respect and obey Australian Laws, Regulations and Migration Requirements does not constitute "xenophobia" or "racism".

Col Rouge: absence of quality parenting

From Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) inquiry into Children in Detention. “…parents in detention who were previously very effective and competent became depressed in detention…were unable to play with their children, read to them, supervise them, or look after their safety…”

Then there were the unaccompanied minors –285 kids without parents detained between 1 Jan 1999 and 30 June 2002 who had DIMIA as their guardian – yes, their gaoler was also their guardian.

See http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention/ The report is a horror story – any school that had such a high rate of suicide and self-harm would be shut down immediately. Please do read it.

I’m a bit perplexed as to why you insist that asylum seekers are “flouting our laws”.

Arriving without a visa and making an asylum claim is a contingency covered in the Migration Act, and starts a process to assess the claim.

Asylum seekers who arrive by plane with tourist or student or business visas and claim asylum are not detained. They live in the community while their claims are assessed. Most claimants in this group have their claims rejected.

Asylum seekers who arrive without valid visas (usually by boat) are detained while their claims are assessed. Most of this group (like 90% most) are found to be refugees.

So the people most likely to be determined to be refugees are locked up. The ones most likely to be refused live in the community. Another example of how stupid the system is.

Like I‘ve said before, we do need a system, but not what we have at the moment. Not only does it not work, it’s very expensive, very cruel, very damaging and a drain upon our already overworked mental health system which attempts to undo the damage inflicted by indefinite and unnecessary mandatory detention.

There is, of course, another solution to all this; electronic detention. It is not a great idea, and I certainly would not consider it acceptable for children, but, if we detain asylum seekers simply to avoid those who are not legit refugees disappearing into the community, we could save ourselves a lot of money and the detainees a lot of mental anguish and misery.
An electronic surveillance device around each asylum seekers ankle would allow them to live in the community, while their claims are being assessed. We could even allow them to work and support themselves during the process. If their claims are substantiated (as apparently happens with 90 odd % of asylum seekers) we remove the device and wish them well. If they are not, we know exactly where they are.
Why has this not been even considered? Is it because we don't detain them to avoid them melting into the community, but to make some kind of macho political point about what tough guys we are, picking on and increasing the misery of some of the world's most desperate people? That these poor souls include children is something we will all be ashamed of for a very long time.

At least Enaj is prepared to think about what could be a very serious problem. Because asylum seekers in Australia will sit in detention until they are found to be genuine or are prepared to go home if they are not, we haven't had many people who falsely claim to be refugees. In European countries that don't have detention the proportion of such people is very high, as I posted earlier on the UK. It is true that Australia didn't have a big problem back before Bob Hawke when we didn't detain either, but it is a different world now. The Cold War is over. Travel is cheaper and easier. There are well-organised gangs of people smugglers. Third World people are better informed about the higher living standards available in the developed countries. What reason do Shoshana, Rossco et al. have to believe that the outcome of abandoning detention will be like Australia in the sixties and not like the UK now? Or don't they care about the long term social and environmental consequences of losing control of our borders, so long as they can feel morally pure?

A lot of the people so negative about unauthorized boat arrivals seem to rely heavily on government propaganda. The amount of ‘urban myths’ is astounding both in our community and on this list (e.g., queue jumping; illegal immigrants .. the list goes on). I’d like to go into more depth on this, but space doesn’t permit.

I’ve been involved in the refugee movement for a number of years. I’ve done the background research from a variety of sources (for and against), and I’ve visited the detention centres and spoken to detainees. What I see is a huge amount of asylum seekers being denied justice for a whole range of reasons. Just to name a few:
1. the colossal inefficiencies of DIMIA. I cannot stress how inefficient this government department is.

2. many of the pro bono lawyers are simply overworked and sometimes make mistakes.

3. Asylum seekers are often put in a situation where they have to prove the impossible; for example, sometimes it is simply impossible to obtain Western documentation, in particular in war-torn third world countries.

The fact that the system isn’t working is shown by the fact that a number of asylum seekers are now getting out. They were ‘illegal’, some for as long as 5 years, and now they are viewed as refugees. But the situation for many hasn’t changed in that 5 year period. Surely, that tells us the system has failed them?

It’s interesting that such a fuss is being made over a relatively small number of asylum seekers when Australia plays host to thousands of ‘illegal immigrants’. Surely it couldn’t be because these ‘illegals’ are primarily white Americans and Britons? No, not in Australia ….

Anyway, my view is YES overhaul the system. They have suffered enough, and there are other much better ways than indefinite detention discussed previously on this list. Keeping asylum seekers locked up indefinitely in desert prisons is simply indefensible.

Howard

Xena, the other forum 'Muslim Village' ? I was censored there, but I don't quite see what u mean by Christian charity ? Speak the truth in love is also a Christian virtue, but I admit, I am human and there are times when things get to me like anyone, and I find myself wanting to 'win an argument'. I regret such excursions.

Xena,

-'as many as we can environmetally support' good :) now we can begin to discuss some reasoning and logic. Ok.. question. When the government decides we are 'full' but people KEEP COMING because while Australia is full, its less overfull than Lahore or Mumbai, or wherever, so people continue to come, WHAT do u do with them then ? Ultimately, you would be cornered into having to have a deterrant policy, what would that be ? shoot them before they set foot here ? or, just let em come, and re-shape our country as they see fit ? Please answer this little bit, its important for an on-going discussion.

I strongly suggest, that if large numbers of people of Macedonian backround started to arrive, the Greeks would be making representations to the Immig dept quick smart :) People are still people.

Col, thanx for the support, I actually would support a 'picky and choosy' immig policy, mainly to keep 'balance' as a goal. No one ethnic group being over represented. I often reflect on a couple of typical indicents. The Greeks and Macedonians who hate each others guts and try to rip said 'guts' out of the other at soccer matches, and the Serbs, Croats and Muslims of the Bosnia/Yugoslavia events. The Greek/Macededonian issue goes back a couple of 1000 yrs, they clearly dont forget. When we allow immigrants, here, we are also by default also allowing their 'issues' with them, so if we have 2 communities pre-disposed to hate and violence against each other, I would include this in the assessment of suitability for residence and citizenship of Australia.

But I'm totally with you on the 'we determine, not outsiders' -on who comes here.

Shoshana “I’m a bit perplexed as to why you insist that asylum seekers are “flouting our laws”.

Arriving without a visa and making an asylum claim is a contingency covered in the Migration Act, and starts a process to assess the claim.”

I would suggest avoiding normal points of entry, choosing instead to seek out a deserted beaches to land on without the formalities of customs/migration officers displays “clear intent to flout migration procedures”.

“Asylum seekers who arrive without valid visas (usually by boat) are detained while their claims are assessed. Most of this group (like 90% most) are found to be refugees.”

Those who are found to be “genuine refugees” are not detained but released on being issued a visa – so what is your point - are you attempting to defend those who clearly are not and suggesting we reward their bad faith behaviour?

Comments from HREOC (an office which should be disbanded) – as a father of children I have always accepted and fulfilled my responsibility as a parent. The parents of children in detention are the ones who are fundamentally responsible for their actions and parenting likewise. They actively and freely pursued the course of action which resulted in their detention.

As BOAZ_David correctly said – if you want to focus of Muslim migrants why do they make the extra journey to Australia when directly due North of us is the largest Muslim nation in the world where refugees from the middle east will be free of their persecutors and embraced by a like-minded religious majority? - Economic advantage is why – and that makes them economic refugees – not real asylum seekers.

David_BOAZ – on the matter of Serb v Croat interracial conflict etc – coming from UK and having been bombed by IRA - to be honest I have always been amazed there is not more Anglo-Irish resentments – thank God in Australia with most people the baggage of the old-country is left in those lands and the tolerance of multi-culturalism does, largely, prevail.

Col, yes, it is quite unusual that those of Irish/Brit/Scot ancestry do not seem to have brought those conflicts here, I'm not sure why, perhaps one reason is that we dont have any system likely to favor one side or the other. John Howard is Anglican by background, Costello Baptist, and Abbot Catholic, seems like a good mix :) at least it shows that at the top echelons of power, denominational tradition is not an issue.

When in Borneo, working with a non denominational mission we were happily giving formal training to the Anglican bloke (a Canon) and the fellowship between protestant groups was 'seamless' as the saying goes.

I don't see any such harmony between Greek and Maceodonian, Serb and Croat, Lebanese/Palentinian and Israeli. Or Muslims in general with Jews.

CHILDREN IN DETENTION.

Actually this is interesting. These families have survived persecution,(allegedly) and difficult traumatic journeys, being ripped off by greedy underhanded parasites who put them in leaky boats, and suddenly when they are fed 3 meals a day, have comfort and security and safety .. "OH.. its too much, we have to kill ourselves"

I mean.... *THINK*...... something is wrong with that, suddenly they go from 'robust travellers facing hostile forces on every side' to "cringing fearful suspicious and suicidal victims". Children should be with families always, with parents.

No doubt someone will point out my 'lack of Christian compassion' but I think its plain common sense to assess facts and situations on merit. Then there will be 'What would Jesus do' ... ah.. well, I recall he went to Temple and drove out those who were using it as an oppotunity to 'cash in'. It seems that when people advocate responsible political stewardship of a country they are immediately beaten to debate death with 'what would Jesus do' .. its almost the same as using the 'hitler- death of discussion ploy.
Jesus is not a hammer and I'm not a nail. I'm quite willing to engage at length on the Biblical Jesus, but please dont use His name just for scoring points over issues like this.

BOAZ_David - 3 meals a day

The people who come here seeking asylum are fleeing from political persecution not economic problems. Getting three meals a day is not their difficulty. In fact the food in detention is not a reason to come to Australia at all - it is disgusting and asylum seekers in detention would rather cook their own but aren't permitted to do so.

There is a big difference between a refugee who needs economic survival and a refugee who is fleeing political persecution. Personally I think both have valid needs but this discussion is about those who are in detention seeking asylum ie. with political problems.

The Netherlands is having second thoughts about letting in so many Muslim asylum seekers ever since Theo Van Gogh was stabbed in the street for saying things the Muslims did'nt like. France is having huge social problems with the ever increasing North African muslim population. Because they don't assimilate. Muslims in China are even demanding their own Islamic state (and the U.S as well). That is probably why muslim asylum seekers is such a contentious issue, Howard. Quite frankly, white people generally don't represent such a threat!

As for Vietnamese refugees, some are good, some are bad. Bad, you know the drug dealing lot you see in Springvale. Since some are good and some bad, detention centres are a good resource to check character. How do you know they are'nt fleeing punishment for a crime they have committed? Say a murderer fleeing revenge attacks by his victims family.

Col,“Those who are found to be “genuine refugees” are not detained but released on being issued a visa – so what is your point - are you attempting to defend those who clearly are not and suggesting we reward their bad faith behaviour?”

My point is (and its one that’s not generally well known)

Some asylum seekers are detained, some are not.

The ones who are detained, often for years, are the ones most likely to be assessed as refugees and granted visas. The ones who are not detained are the most likely to fail in their refugee claims.

1. Those who arrive with a visa (business or student or tourist) – they usually come by plane. They live in the community while their refugee claims are being assessed. The majority of this group have their claims rejected and leave the country.

2. Those who arrive without a visa - they usually come by boat.
They are held in detention centres whilst their claims are assessed.
90% or more of this group are found to be refugees and given visas. Some are detained for 3, 4 and 5 years while their claims are assessed, and then found to be refugees.

It’s a stupid, unnecessary, expensive system that does not deter people fleeing terror.

It was in place for years and the numbers went up.

Asylum seeker numbers world wide have gone down significantly in the last couple of years because of changed circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq. The push factors in countries of origin play a greater role than local Australian policy even though pollies like to take the credit. Doesn’t take much research to understand what really makes a difference.

Shoshana “Asylum seeker numbers world wide have gone down significantly in the last couple of years because of changed circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

That is called “spurious correlation” – it can be observed, equally, that the number of fraudulent asylum seekers attempting to enter Australia secretly has gone down because of the circulation into common knowledge of our policy of detention as well as the policy of hefty gaol terms for smugglers– eg – illegal immigrants, knowing of the greater risk of detection and detention, do not attempt to evade our migration protocols in the first place.

“The ones who are detained, often for years, are the ones most likely to be assessed as refugees and granted visas. The ones who are not detained are the most likely to fail in their refugee claims.” –

The ones detained for years are the ones who deliberately put up barriers to being classified. They are more likely non-genuine hoping that the “emotion” generated from their self-inflicted plight will work for them.

It reminds me of the Indian practice of deliberately disfiguring and maiming their children to make then appear more “pitiful and appealing” as beggars.

As has been said before – there travek through plenty of other places in the world before they reach us but they travel the extra distance and try to evade migration to illegally enter Australia , disrespecting and flouting our migration requirements as “economic refugees”.

Actually the reason people are in detention for years is that the system is failing them and us.

The system of investigation of asylum seekers is set up to obstruct and delay claims for asylum. As I began explaining before(but the 350 word limit was not enough to complete) was the 'process' set up by DIMIA.

Briefly - case officer, RRT - Refugee Review Tribunal, Federal court/Full federal court/High court/Minister intervention. All of these steps can take 3-12 months each which is why someone found to be a genuine refugee can be incarcerated for a very long time... with refugees recently being freed after 3, 4, 5 years locked up.

Why weren't they found to be genuine in the first case officer interview ? - poorly trained staff, political pressure on DIMIA to obstruct cases.

Col; “the number of fraudulent asylum seekers attempting to enter Australia secretly has gone down because of the circulation into common knowledge of our policy of detention”

Que fraudulent?

Over 90% of those detained are found to be genuine refugees and given visas. It’s just that it takes years.

Col:“The ones detained for years are the ones who deliberately put up barriers to being classified. They are more likely non-genuine hoping that the “emotion” generated from their self-inflicted plight will work for them”

I used to be an Investigations Officer for the tax office - I'm not a complete idiot or a pushover for a sob story. In fact it’s partly through this experience that I recognise how badly DIMIA conducts interviews.

I've sat in on a few DIMIA interviews and been gobsmacked when I’ve seen the resulting report where the interviewer has cast doubt on what the asylum seeker has said. They could have asked for clarification or additional proof at the time but didn’t. If they had, a simple misunderstanding would have been sorted. Instead the DIMIA person interprets it as the person being a liar, and decides not to believe the rest of their story.

An example – the interviewer asks if the interviewee drives. This gets translated incorrectly between the interviewer-translator-interviewee and back again – are you a driver – and the interviewer records the asylum seeker is a taxi driver.

Next interview, the asylum seeker is asked about being a taxi driver and denies it. It’s inferred he’s lying because he now won’t admit to being a taxi driver. This taxi driver nonsense follows him for years. He has no idea where this has come from until he listens to previous interview tapes. By this time his English is good enough for him to understand where the misunderstanding arose.

This kind of thing happens all the time. The system is a mess.

Denying protection and refuge to people in need is nothing to be proud of. Locking innocent people up for years in an attempt to deter others is nothing to be proud of

Shoshana
This is fascinating information. I have worked as a housing officer and can vouch for similar experiences in processing applicants. Often depends on the attitude of the interviewing officer as to the result of the claim.

Col and others appear to be writing from a set of prejudices rather than from accurate knowledge.

My experience with accepted refugees is that the majority simply want to get on with their lives in their new country - just like us caucasians. And the majority are decent law abiding people just like the rest of us. Quelle surprise.

shoshana, from your first hand experience, what surprises me a little is that you are calling for a dismantling of the system, rather than the logical issue of better training of interviewers.

Some of what you say doesn't ring true, i.e. that the interviewers are kind of pre-disposed to erect barriers to would be refugees. What you described was just irresponsible and unprofessional conduct, dereliction of duty, not taking things seriously etc. so why not address this rather than calling for 'no more detention centres' ?

It appears to me that if this was addressed, and interviews handled effectivly and efficiently, the problems of mis-assessment and subsequent long delays in processing would dissappear.

The steps described by Mirana, or levels of appeal etc, only happen because of this problem it appears. Where people realize that they have not effectively conveyed their true situation to the interviewer, so they appeal. Solve the 'interviewer' problem and you also solve the 'long stays in detention' issue.

Am I missing something here ?

Yes, U R missing something, BD; the incarceration of many innocent, men, women, children in what are, in essence, concentration camps. We did not do that to previous refugees - why now?

Of course interviewers require appropriate training but that is hardly a panacea to the psychological scarring of forcible internment.

Xena – we are all the subject to our own prejudices and virtues. What you claim as prejudice I would observe as balanced concern for the stability and fabric of orderly life. What you see as “normal”, to me, reads like remarkably fool hardy, anarchistic, irresponsible, naive woolly thinking.

Before suggesting someone with an opposing view is prejudiced, look at yourself and consider how free of prejudice your views are or how flawed, biased and intolerant your thinking is (for whatever reason).

And before your descend deeper into the pit of emotionalist hyperbole, before making analogies to concentration camps.

Comparing an Australian detention centre to such is simplistic offensive garbage and you know it –

Maybe just compare a detention centre to a third world refugee camp and tell me which has the better housing, water and sanitation… To help with this “challenge” I will even give you three guesses and a hint (not the refugee camp).

Quite honestly your posts do less and less to espouse your cause, more and more to expose your emotionalist chant for what it really is – garbage.

David_BOAZ – Agree with your last post – but when did the demands of “radicals” ever take into account reason and accuracy. Much of the points you and I are making is like “casting pearls before swine”.

As we come to the end of this post before it is swept off the main board, remember this -

Quoting the UK Daily Telegraph “Bourgass is one of an estimated quarter of a million people who have come to Britain in recent years claiming asylum and who stayed on despite being turned down.."

Kemal Bourgass has been given 32 years for the attempted terrorist mass poisoning of Londoners and the murder of a Policeman. Good reason for being circumspect and possibly even suspicious and detaining people who "wash up" on our shores

Xena
I would really like to actually achieve something in this discussion, I dont want to "win", nor would I enjoy 'losing' so it should not be about that.

I want to get to something closer to truth, and as Col says 'balance'.

Now, you call detention centres 'Concentration' camps. Given your knowledge of what that wording actually conjures up in the mind of anyone who has seen the Nazi camps, do you think that is truly honestly a fair way of describing the detention centres ? How would you describe the Cells at a police station ? How would you describe our Jails ?

The emotive connotation of the word 'concentration' camp is ugly and has overtones of mass murder and the burning of bodies. I find your imagery unacceptable in terms of a reasonable and intelligent discussion about the issue of unlawful entrants to Australia. (and they are unlawful)

Now, you suggested that 'improved interview' training is NOT the answer now, yet this was touted as the main source of the problem which was keeping people contained for long periods of time. I don't think I was missing as much as ur suggesting.

Now, you made a statement, ("innocent" men women and children) asked a question, "Why incarcerate them now" ? and I'll try to answer it fairly.

The word 'innocence' is to prejudge the outcome of an assessment process. Right or wrong ? (refer Cols comment about Kamel Bougss)
Incarcerate again has emotive connotations, the appropriate word here would be 'confine' or 'detain'.

Now, you suggested if I remember correctly that we should accept 'as many as we can environmentally sustain'. Would that be like 3 million ? our population is projected to be from 23mill to 30mill by 2051. Ok, assuming we can sustain such a number, would u therefore accept say 5 million refugees NOW ? There are many more than that in the world Xena.
Would you anticipate this having ANY negative social political or economic impact ? if so, in what way please ?

An asylum seeker incarcerated in Baxter detention centre overdosed on sleeping tablets last night.

“we are all the subject to our own prejudices and virtues.”

- Thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious Col, next time I need advice about crossing the road I know who to call.

“remarkably fool hardy, anarchistic, irresponsible, naive woolly thinking.”

– Col I guess when the debate is too hard for you, then all you can do is dismiss my comments.

“casting pearls before swine”. - Arrogance does nothing for your argument either.

Fact: I have worked directly with many refugees in assessing their claims for housing; I have met their children, husbands, wives.

Fact: I have been privy to first hand accounts of their lives prior to escape and during detention.

Australia has always taken in refugees why is there such a backlash against the latest? I have never suggested an ‘open slather’ intake - just a more humane approach than what we have at present.

Why are you so opposed to a humane approach? I have suggested racism – if that is untrue why do you attempt to justify internment of INNOCENT people and in this country we presume innocence until proven guilty and the majority of refugees are found to be genuine.

Boaz, big yawn, see above.

Xena – “Obviously” the “bleeding obvious” was obscured from your view – why else would the likes of me need to point it out to you?

I guess suggesting my views are “prejudiced” could be said to be – “dismissive” – I see your capacity for accepting criticism is seriously limited, compared to your capacity for dealing it out. Not a viable debating style.

That you associate voluntarily with illegal migrants might merely indicate the limited range of opportunities you have to associate with real people. I do not need to associate with criminals to be aware of the effects of criminal behaviour.

The UK would have been a safer place and a UK police officer still be alive if Kemal Bourgass had been despatched back to Algeria when he failed the “asylum seeker” criteria, instead of being allowed to ferment terror as he freely circulated in UK society.

As for your response to Davids comment “Big Yawn” May I quote you

“I guess when the debate is too hard for you, then all you can do is dismiss (Davids / ) my comments.”

And detaining those who flout migration rules and protocols is “racially indifferent” and not “racist” – especially when I do recall the list of detainees / deportees has included a number of celebrated British deportees, sent back to the dear old mother-land (UK) from whence they had originated – hardly the actions of “racists”.

As I said before – good at dishing it out – too arrogant to accept it back... in the words of Darren Hinch “shame, shame, shame”

Miranda – so what – Indians are known to disfigure their children to make them more “emotionally pitiful” as beggars. Likewise “overdosing” is a pitiful action and deserving of contempt not compassion. Just as sewing ones own children’s lips together and other acts of self and parental destruction are contemptible.

Col, after reading your posts regarding abortion, most of which were well reasoned, I am disappointed with your efforts here. Xena was quite right to point out that dismissing her comments hardly constitutes debate.

In addition she states that she has worked with housing refugees - that is not 'associating with criminals' - long bow you are drawing there.

Boaz made the same points again - no wonder xena said refer to above - neither you nor Boaz seem to have had any direct contact with refugees, unlike Miranda and xena. You prefer to base your debate on sensational extremes such as the Kemal Bourgass case. So one bad apple is it....?

I have recently employed a young afghanistan man for labouring work in my landscape business - he would have to be the keenest and most enthusiastic labourer I have ever employed. So, one good apple....

Two people can look at the same facts and come to two different conclusions. Just because Xena and Miranda have contact with refugees does'nt mean what they say is gospel. Being educated and well informed does'nt make much difference in a debate, because people will pick and choose information to suit their argument, and omit important facts.

So perhaps Garra was right when he said this debate was devoid of any meaningful comment. But it is clear refugees are political currency, which is why refugee advocates want these "refugees" or "illegal immigrants" to stay irrespective of conditions back home.

BOAZ-David; Thanks for your response, your suggestion of better training for interviewers is reasonable but I don’t believe it’s enough to make the system work fairly. That’s because the same organisation that processes asylum claims – DIMIA - is responsible for immigration detention centres built like maximum security prisons in the middle of nowhere to detain men, women and children. Our most dangerous criminals are not held in such isolation.

This speaks volumes about current government attitudes towards asylum seekers, which is at the core of the problem.

Attitudes towards asylum seekers that permeate DIMIA as well as the wider community are driven by rhetoric used by pollies like Howard, Ruddock and Vanstone (eg children overboard).

The migration laws are second in complexity only to taxation laws. An asylum seekers is confronted not only with a different culture and language, but also an extremely complex legal system, that many refugee advocates struggle to comprehend (so do one or two government Ministers!!)

If the system was set up to be fair, then asylum seekers would at least have good access to lawyers to help them navigate it. This is impossible when they are locked up so far away; Baxter is bad enough then there's Xmas Island and Nauru.

An Iraqi friend was imprisoned in Saddam’s prisons for 2 years as a political prisoner, and brutally tortured most days. His body still bears the scars. In Australia, he was locked up in Curtin detention centre for 11 months, found to be a refugee and released on a temporary visa that does not allow family reunions. His future is uncertain as his temporary visa is under review.

He explains to me that the pain of physical torture recedes after 4 or 5 hours yet the mental and psychological torture of indefinite detention, temporary visas, no family reunion - the pain never stops. “Saddam’s torture kills quickly, Howard’s torture kills slowly”. He went from one prison to another, it just compounds the pain.

For another perspective, see submission to HREOC inquiry into kids in detention by a former DIMIA manager at Woomera

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human%5Frights/children%5Fdetention/statements/hamilton.htm

Ringtail

yes same points. There is a preacher in Sth America, he preached one week, then next week, same sermon, and the week after. He told enquirers later, "whats the point of a new sermon if the previous one has not been ignored".
I raised issues which are central to the debate, from my (and many others) side, and they were greeted with 'ignore, dismiss,ridicule or arrogance "Yawn"... but were they met with serious attempts are response ? Barely.

shoshana,
you have shown yourself worthy of a respectful response, so I'll do my best to give one.

"Current government attitudes"

Has the government NOT accepted large numbers of genuine assylum seekers who have been living in camps in various places, who have been properly assessed and processed by the UN etc, and been brought to this country in an orderly and controlled manner ?

Given that we both know the answer to this is YES, we have to ask, 'why then, so harsh on the 'boat' people ? Ok. the Answer is most likely the simple fact that they are attempting to avoid the system, avoid processing in other countries, avoid a long wait that others have patiently endured and then been rewarded with a visa, avoid avoid avoid.

Have we not accepted Afghan refugees from any camps on the various borders ? Have we not accepted Asians from the Thai Border during the problems in Cambodia ? Have we not accepted Southern Sudanese refugees from camps etc ? (having met some of them and heard how long they had to wait in camps, I think I know about this) Some waited 2 yrs in camps and guess what those camps are WAY worse than our 'horrible detention centres', but do we call squalor of the refugee camps in Darfour or Sudan 'incarceration in inhumane detention centres' ?. Contrast the squalor and lack of 'marauding rapists' of Darfur with the security of our processing centres.

So, one has to ask, 'why' is there such a stink raised by various groups over those who are so flagrantly avoiding legal chanels. ?

Simply, David_BOAZ, the reason is because we are Australian and we can do better. This is our country and we need to make sure that human rights are not abused here. It is happening in detention centres in Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, Port Augusta, Nauru, Christmas Island and so it is up to us to do something about it.

It is not illegal to seek asylum in Australia.

The government of John Howard has used innocent people to gain political momentum by re-inventing Pauline Hanson's racist ideas of treating those who are different as second-class citizens.

I was once proud of Australia's multiculturalism. Now it is being undermined and abused. The divide and rule mentality of this current federal government just shows how easy it is to fool Australians. But as Bob Marley sang: "You can fool some people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time".

The racism that Howard is using about refugees comes from a fear of others that is easy to tap in to. But it has nothing to do with national security and a lot to do with finding someone to scapegoat so that the government can manipulate us. Fear can stop people from looking deeper.

Has it stopped you?

Unlike anyone posting here, I've been detained in one of Australia's illustrious immigration detention facilities.

Before I continue, I'll be very clear in stating that I broke the law.

I overstayed my visa. It was an accident, and I was 'apprehended' only 6 days after my visa expired. Because I broke the law, I deserved some kind of penalty. What happened over the next few days, however, was a farce.

I'm white, blond, from Pennsylvania. Not that that entitles me to treatment different from the rest of the detainees. I am entitled respect like anyone else.

I was handcuffed in an interrogation room at the police station. After arriving at detention, I was placed in solitary confinement. Yes, solitary confinement. When my migration case worker finally arrived (14 hours after they promised), he told ME about MY plans to remain here unlawfully, work for cash, get a degree without a student visa. It was up to me to convince him otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent. Luckily I speak English and I could explain and ask questions.

Among the more interesting things that happened: A package with a notebook and pen, was confiscated, and all foil had to be removed from chocolates. No pens? I might stab myself, then eat the foil. There are many other stories.

But the real problem WAS the different kind of treatment I got. My migration agent said it best. "This place wasn't built for you, it was built for the fruitpickers." But I was the one who DID, of everyone in there, break the law! He also pointed out to me, a white person with whom he could speak his mind, how the place stinks of Indians and Chinese. Yikes!

David and Col Rouge, I would never say that your arguments for better assessment are completely racially motivated, but some peoples clearly are.

In Australia, this is totally inappropriate. If there must be detention, then people like this migration agent cannot hold the fate of real people in the balance, and we need to stop treating people like they are criminals, because they aren't.

MIRANDA

by 'do better' are u in fact saying that the people we accept from all over the worlds trouble spots in an orderly and controlled and properly assessed manner is bad,flawed, not enough ? It seems to me that no matter what the government did, unless it involved open borders for all and sundry you would not be happy. Correct me if I'm wrong. Has it occurred to you that the government is just that ? They govern, they control, the limit, the advance, as the MANDATE they were given dictates. How can you expect it to be any other way ?
Perhaps 'your mob' did not get up, and ur being like some 3rd world would be dictator :) saying "The election was rigged" ... seems so.
Newsflash, 'our mob' DID get up. They are governing on behalf of those who voted for them. This does NOT mean they are doing EVerything in accordance with our views on fairness or on justice in all cases. Don't white-ant the policies of a freely elected government. "YOU" are not God, I'm sorry. (Neither am I)

KAREN.

my position is outlined pretty well in various posts. But it is not 'racial' in a 'racist' sense(see dictionary). (Im white, married to an Asian) To be honest, I would allocate points based on a number of factors including social and political compatability and other things, which is our democratic right to do. The UN (that corrupt and pathetic organization which cannot even stop genocide, I hold them in utter contempt) does not run Australia, nor does Miranda , WE do.
If Miranda's mob get elected she can say "she" does :)

I'm sorry for your sad experience, you have my sympathy, but u did say something which opened up a line of curiosity in me, you said 'Migration agent' .... do u mean that he was acting on your behalf with the DIMIA ? or, are u referring to the official immigration person ? The accusations they flung at you are a disgrace. Fill me in please.

BOAZ_David et al keep flogging the argument "we won the election" so the rest of us should just accept the majority decision.
Sorry, but history is full of examples of policies and practices which were acceptable to the majority (at least of those who got to vote) but are recognised now (with the benefit of hindsight) to be unacceptable in a civilised, modern society eg:
.slavery
.child labour
.disenfranchisement of women from the vote
.apartheid
.discrimination against Jews and especially Hitler's "final solution"
.instutionalised discrimination against Negros in the USA, especially the South,until the 1960s

Even our own "White Australia" policy continued up until the 1970s and was not abandoned due to demands from the Australian public and I have no doubt a majority would have voted to retain it ( I am sure there is a significant proportion would even now like to have it reintroduced). No, this policy was abandoned because we had political leaders, Liberal and Labor, who recognised it was morally unacceptable.
Unfortunately our current crop of leaders, Liberal and Labor, lack the moral fortitude to stand up and say " our treatment of refugees is a disgrace; these are fellow human beings who should be afforded common decency and treated humanely." Our leaders are too worried that what might be called the "One Nation" bloc of voters will turn against them and they might lose the next election. Expediency before morality.

When my grandchildren ask me to explain why we treated refugees the way we do now, my conscience will be clear as I tell them the truth.

Following on from Rossco's post (which is reasonable and isn't peppered with personal insults, BD & Col) is the opening paragraph to today's story in the Age, plus link:

"The Howard Government will be asked this week to find a humanitarian solution for more than 50 asylum seekers who have spent "long enough" in detention on the tiny, cash-strapped island of Nauru."

http://theage.com.au/news/National/UN-plea-for-Nauru-internees/2005/04/17/1113676647109.html

Read it and think.

Ringtail – maybe your pontification is indicative of your own prejudices

Karen – since you outstayed your visa – and thus your welcome – consider youyrself lucky

I can speak for myself and advise – there is nothing racial in my motives – Being an immigrant myself, my motives are based on the right of “Australia” to decide who comes here and who does not – regardless of their race and

those who intended to get dropped from a boat on a deserted beach have damned any merit they may have had in any application they may hence make.

I do not know David_BOAZ except through his posts here but I have never seen him post anything which would indicate "racist" motives or motivations.

I would suggest from what I have heard, detention is Australia is far more "sanguine" than someone experiencing parallel detention in USA – following your “Patriot Act” legislation.

Rossco – my grandchildren may if ask me why we detained illegal immigrants – and I will honestly say –

if you respect a society you do not start by crapping on its entry rules and expect a warm welcome – you respect those rules, stand in line like and follow due process - your grandfather did.

Xena – personal insults – those who live in glass houses should not throw stones - we supposed xenophobic racists (as insults cast in my and Davids direction from you or your fellow travellers) are not the source of all such expletives.

I guess if the vast majority of the population were against mandatory detention they would have expressed it at the last election. That the Liberals retained and increased their elected authority supports the idea that whatever “anti-detention advocates” feel, they are a minority and a minority without merit.

Wow. It's been interesting to find out what the 'other side' thinks. I've never read so many words from anyone who actually voted for John Howard (except in The Australian).

It seems that racism, xenophobia and religious prejudice are rife in Australia - more than I could possibly have imagined.

John Howard has tapped into some deep and tenacious insecurities.

Interesting.

Miranda,

is that the best you can do ? repeat slogans ? c'mon, if u want to have your views respected, you will need to lose the slogans and actually grapple with what is being said by your debating opponents.

I asked a series of crucial and important questions, which I'm yet to see your answer to.

In particular, my carefully numbered list. Until you actually answer these, you are not engaging with those of different views, you are just shouting your 'party line' at them with closed ears.

If you want to head further towards some kind of reconciliation of views, it would be a good idea to respond to seriously intended questions, which would enable me (and others) to actually know what lies beHIND your oft repeated slogans.

Ranting on about 'xenophobia' in response to "Is the govermnents acceptance of people from the worlds trouble spots in a controlled manner not good enough" ?- is not a way to foster support for you or your ideas.

I'm afaid you remind me too much of Jehovah's witnesses who come to your door with ONE idea in mind, "YOU listen, WE talk". That is not an insult, its a description of how you are coming across.

Deal with ISSUES step by step, reveal your thinking, your justification and then we can get past first base.

I refer you AGAIN to my list of questions above.

Xena

As I said. "Glutton and Drunkard" or "He is driven by demons" with you there is no win. Its 'your damned xenophobic/racist/blah blah' no matter what I say which is not in accord with your view. So, I refer you again to my questions which I seek answers for

ROSSCO
I address my questions in the list above (see the appropriate post)
to you also.

I have made specific points, and I desire real thought out answers.

Your post said pretty much 'zero' because it was not on the issue.

Forget your "The majority is not always right" because in the absence of God almighty, the majority IS ALWAYS right, by might'

I hope I don't have to go thru the same philosophical treadmill with you also or again to indicate that apart from God, there is no such THING as 'right' there is ONLY 'convenient' 'workable' 'less or more harmful' so, please, put your thinking cap on and grapple JUST with the issue at hand.

Here is an extra question:

"Do you have any vested interest in the support of illegal assylum seekers coming to Australia, either politically or personally" ?

BD: so U didn't bother reading my link. Quelle surprise.

And no, there is no win, BD, just a difference of opinion. U think I'm a bleeding heart liberal and I think you're intolerant and bigoted.

Fine.

"An asylum seeker incarcerated in Baxter detention centre overdosed on sleeping tablets last night. (Posted by Miranda, Saturday, April 16, 2005 11:51:14 AM)"

Exactly what does this prove Miranda. Suicide actually happens in this country as often as road fatalities. Are we going to ban cars?

Deaths in custody also happen - are we going to stop imprisoning anyone who breaks the law?

Does a new mother committing suicide mean we should ban motherhood?

Shame on you for using the death of an obviously disturbed person to further your political agenda. And so soon after the person died. The quick response time to you posting does not hide the glee of your point scoring.

t.u.s

Col Rouge - all of my grandparents were born in Australia, but one of my great-grandfathers did not wait in a queue or come in following proper procedures - he was a sailor who jumped ship in Melbourne, became a farmer and an exemplary citizen. Probably made more of a contribution to Australia than many others who have come as properly documented migrants. You obviously did not read properly my previous post where I fessed up to having an "illegal immigrant" in the family tree, but then doesn't surprise me.
BOAZ_David - I have no vested interest in supporting refugees other than a profound belief in human rights and social justice for all.

Your proposition that might is always right is absolutely appalling. That excuses every atrocity against minorities carried out by every tin-pot dictator at any time - all they have to say I did it in the name of God and for the majority of my subjects.

I don't know which God you believe in but as far as I an concerned you are welcome to any religious beliefs you like, but then so is every other person on the planet. Personally I am a committed atheist but I know I am a more tolerant person than many who profess to be believers. When you bring God into your might is right argument it just confirms my attitude to religion.

I just wanted to see what reaction the suicide of a person in Baxter detention centre would cause and how the forum would respond.

Unfortunately, my worst fears were realized. Those who care and those who don't were pretty much as I expected.

Yes, lots of people die for all sorts of reasons. Mothers commit suicide, car crashes, sudden infant death, deaths in custody. And generally there are all sorts of people who care, investigate, try to change and to stop it being repeated.

But some people on this loop unfortunately would not bother to change anything because it suits them that people are locked in detention because they feel 'safe'.

Well, locking innocents in detention doesn't make me feel safe. Because it is how we treat those most vulnerable in our society that matters most. What our government does to these people does matter. It also matters if they commit suicide because of the policy that our government has in place. That makes their deaths our fault. Yes, your fault Col Rouge, Boaz_David, etc!

Miranda it was a political stunt - using the death of someone to realise your worst fears.

Detention does not lead to suicide any more than motherhood or being a separated dad leads to suicide.

Usually the person has some deep psychological problem which manifests itself as suicide - otherwise the suicide rate would be much higher.

Your post took advantage of the plight of a detained person to make a political point that is not there.

It would be the same as someone who disagrees with homosexuality posting a comment about a just imprisoned gay peadophile to prove their point about the ills of homosexuality.

It was a cheap shot and says more about your character than the character of Col Rouge and Boaz_David who you so readily blamed for the death.

t.u.

You’re right t.u.s. Immigration detainees usually do have deep seated psychological problems, many suffer from post traumatic stress disorder because they have fled persecution, imprisonment, torture, violence, seen loved ones being killed - horrors I hope you and I never have to deal with.

Free torture and trauma counselling is available for refugees, in recognition of this. (More than 90% of detainees are found to be refugees)

What asylum seekers need is a place to feel safe and secure, and begin healing from previous trauma.

Instead they get locked up, which compounds their pain and suffering. And indefinitely - which in itself is recognised as a form of torture.

There's been numerous studies and reports supporting the view that indefinite detention does adversely affect mental health and is a major factor in the very high level of self harm and attempted suicide within immigration detention centres.

For an account from an ex-DIMIA employee see
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human%5Frights/children%5Fdetention/statements/hamilton.html

One of the many reasons I am so opposed to indefinite mandatory detention is seeing firsthand how damaging it is. People who have experienced both the prison system and detention centres say prisons are better. There are more activities, the facilities are better and, importantly, the prisoners know how long they will be there.

Indefinite mandatory detention, especially for already vulnerable people, causes huge mental health problems that continue long after the refugees are finally released. Our mental health services are overstretched as it is. Government policy towards asylum seekers is adding to this problem, and the government knows it.

It is an indefensible system. The level of self harm alone should be enough for these hellholes to be shut down. 20% of kids self-harming? It’s state-sanctioned child abuse.

If the detention centres are such a hellhole, then refugees would be far better off in their homeland.

Xena.
you shouldn't have given me a link which proves 'my' point dear :)

Those people are IN NAURU because they

a) Have been found NOT to be refugees and
b) Refuse to return to their own countries.

It is NOT the decision of the government, it is THEIR decision.
They have been assessed, found 2b NOT refugees, and now, (why we even take thought for their 'desires' after this is beyond me) because 'THEY' refuse to be lawfully returned, they are seeking sympathy of people like you, hoping they will have a better chance of flouting our law.

Bear in mind, many people coming here as 'seeking assylum' from various countries can find that the threat no longer exists, (due to regime change) hence by the time they arrive they are not refugees.

My questions remain largely unanswered. The only thing I find is 'emotional blackmail' from Miranda.

"Your all heartless unless u allow my deliberate use of this sad event to try to turn your thinking."

As for ROSCO... man :)
I love those words "I have a profound sense of justice" etc.. ooooooh c'mONNNN mate. Does your sense of 'profound justice' extend to returning the stolen land on which you live ? It wont take much digging to show the rather shallow and hypocritical background to that approach matey :) I prefer the biblical approach "All have sinned" including me. But that does not change my views on sound political/social/cultural management strategies for a problem which would otherwise get seriously out of control to our national detriment.

Does anyone doubt that the 1,000,000 Iranians who have moved to LA are having no impact ? Or the US states where Hispanics (many from illegal immigration) now outnumber traditional inhabitants, to the point of wanting SPANISH to be the language of education ? U can call it anything u like -XENOPHOBIA even, but I call it sound political stewardship.

Rosco
I don't think you are reading my posts very closely mate.
I did not say "the majority are always right, by might" to advocate this as much as to show you that APART FROM GOD, they are always 'right' because they DEFINE right. Thats my point.

A better foundation is:
"love God first, and love your neighbour as yourself". Loving your neighbour does NOT include aiding and abetting him, nor comforting him, nor condoning him in stealing, murdering, defrauding, deceiving etc. including attempting to enter another country illegally, so don't even think about giving me the 'heartless hypocrite' speech please :)
Without concepts of real human rights and real justice from the Almighty, we are all subject to those with the might to decide our futures without reference to any principle other than those they see fit to apply to us.
China is a good example of this. See how they treat dissenters, religous people, etc. See how the old 'flesh' Human Nature is rearing its ugly head in China now. "Weeeee are the top dog, you Japanese are NOT." Pride, arrogance, ego.. "All have sinned"

It doesn't sound like Rossco believes in democracy, I mean, he has so much contempt for public (majority) opinion. He even advocated earlier that public opinion be ignored!

Boaz, sweetie darling sweetie, I don't see how the link proves 'your' point at all. However, your response to it clearly delineates how differently we see and understand the same thing - and there's nothing wrong with that.

Now our differing views doesn't make me wrong or my comments 'garbage' or 'trendy' - just different to yours. To me your attitiude to refugees is heartless.

So, mate, get over it.

;)

Actually, we are all to blame for the suicides in detention. Details of how many - I will find out. (I know there's been some in Port Hedland, Villawood and Maribyrnong.)

I voted for the ALP who brought in mandatory detention in 1991 which became a much more punitive policy under the Liberals from 1996. The invention of 'management' ie. solitary confinement in Baxter 2002 being the eventual outcome of the 'punishment' regime.

In fact, if you have read about 'apartheid' in South Africa. The government was voted in that invented and implemented it (though black people couldn't vote at the time of course).

The same in Nazi Germany. Hitler had support. Everyone knew about the concentration camps but what did they do to close them down or to get the information out to the world? Not enough, obviously.

If you voted for the federal government that implements policies that lead to mental illness and sometimes suicide of asylum seekers locked in detention centres - then you are in fact accountable.

Just as I am accountable.

Get it?

Boaz David QUESTIONS ANSWERED

"MIRANDA
by 'do better' are u in fact saying that the people we accept from all over the worlds trouble spots in an orderly and controlled and properly assessed manner is bad,flawed, not enough ?" BD

Not enough, that's right. M.

"It seems to me that no matter what the government did, unless it involved open borders for all and sundry you would not be happy. Correct me if I'm wrong. Has it occurred to you that the government is just that ? They govern, they control, the limit, the advance, as the MANDATE they were given dictates. How can you expect it to be any other way ?" BD

Governments haven't always done the right thing eg. 'apartheid' in South Africa, denying black Australians the vote, to name just two. M.

"Perhaps 'your mob' did not get up, and ur being like some 3rd world would be dictator :) saying "The election was rigged" ... seems so." BD

I don't think the election was rigged but I do think that John Howard is not truthful and is a very, very manipulative politician. He was in opposition for a long time as leader and aspiring leader of the Liberal Party where he learnt how to get into power and stay there. M.

"Newsflash, 'our mob' DID get up. They are governing on behalf of those who voted for them. This does NOT mean they are doing EVerything in accordance with our views on fairness or on justice in all cases. Don't white-ant the policies of a freely elected government. "YOU" are not God, I'm sorry. (Neither am I)" BD

Obviously, I didn't vote for the present federal government but I wonder about those that did - did they really vote for all that this government has done and will do?
This is a democracy (or so I thought) where it is 'legal' (so far) to protest against the government's policies. Or, perhaps we don't live in a true democracy as it seems you don't think I/we have a right to disagree with the government? M.

Xena and Miranda....

I'll get back to you all, I do thank you Miranda for making the effort to respond to my questions, this is indeed good progress towards an actual debate and meaningful discussion about important issues.
I'm currently snowed under with an avalanche of work and am about to order my Porche :))))))))
.... *smile* kidding, I'm probably stuck with 'middle of the road commodore-ish' wheels for life.

2 B honest, I think we all want the same thing, justice and humanity for all. But there are many aspects to the discussion/ issue, and there is also a lot of accumulated mythology and sentimentality which may or may not be appropriate in the light of history and human nature.

Are we all noticing the unfolding of 'human nature' between China and Japan at the moment ? i.e. "top dog is going to be MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" So each of them appear to believe, and pride, greed and ego are coming to the fore as such a predictable thing, and it's on such predictability of human nature that a lot of what I'm 'on about' is based, quite apart from the Biblical principles which are in fact a 'commentary' on human nature and its appropriate remedy.
Have a nice day everyone, I'll try to turn my brain back on in a day or so or whenever I can squeeze in a visit here. Don't say mean things about me while I'm gone :)

Well, hopefully, some new people will input into the forum.

Meanwhile I am investigating deaths in refugee detention because each of those deaths is important and how they happened tells a lot about the circumstances inside detention centres.

So far I know there's been deaths in Port Hedland, Villawood, Christmas Island, Nauru. All for different reasons. Some suicide, some negligence by health carers.

All could have been avoided.

Well done Miranda and Xena. It is unlikely that there will be many more comments since the article is off the front page now.

I think the only thing that I can add is that people who fear that the asylum seekers would overwhelm us take a negative view of the robustness of our society and it's capacity to respond to the problems that this would cause.

I think that this fear is similar to the hysteria about communism back in the 1950's. With a 'freedom-loving' and wealthy society such as ours was even back then, there was no chance that we would have tolerated a government that resembled the soviet model.

People are so fearful and you would think that Christians like David would have more trust in their God and less in John Howard.

Molly... u need a good talking to :) and I'm going to give it.

Where u get this 'hysteria' about 'outsiders/other races/other beliefs' is totally beyond me, it is not hysteria, it is well thought out, carefully researched, patiently observed undeniable facts of both history and human nature.

Politically I realllly feel you are either naive, ignorant or both, plus a good dollop of Disney thrown in to give you a 'screen saver' idilic picture of life.

Communism was NEVER based on the idea that it would sweep to victory with a vast national majority, its strategy was based on approximately 10% alone. They felt this was enough to bring about the revolution and install the dictatorship of the proletariat. There was no room for 'democracy' because they had 'The Truth' about social/political life.

I have not only EXPERIENCED but also observed in many places the power of ONE SEAT in a democratic country with a close call between major parties. Do I have to thump and pound on this keyboard for a week till you mob get this ONE point which u all seem to be missing.

Minorities WILL without question and without exception attempt to re-shape society in their own image. Have alittle peek-a-boo at the USA and the "Hispanic Vote".. do you remember that Cruz Bustamonte character ? he was seeking the CA governorship by pandering to THEIR agenda. How would you feel if suddenly the language of education was changed from English to Spanish ? and you woke up one morning and your kids were crying at the frustration of not knowing the new language they now had to learn in. Now, important question, dont take another breath until you have answered it with a yes or a no..
"Is this just hysteria OR is it actually happening" (attempts to re-shape parts of the US as outlined above)

Now, if it is NOT happening, then its 'hysteria' but if it IS, then its reality check time for you and others with the same mindset.

David Has communism ever taken hold in a wealthy society that has had 'freedom' without military force being used? And woudl you think that the 'communism' that would have come about through this would be anything as bad as you imagine it would be?

Of course an influx of new cultures attempts to change the existing culture to their way of life. I have faith that the same people who are demonstrating outside the detention centres would be demonstrating outside anywhere in Australia where the new immigrants were able to change the rules so that we were denied our 'freedoms'. Has this happened in Australia, even though that is what Pauline said would happen?

Why are you so sure that change toward another culture is negative? Is that where the difference is so marked between us. I like change and difference and feel powerful enough to cope with it. You don't want it and see it as too powerful to be controlled.

Call me all the names you like. I am bullet proofed against insults by right wing people.

Molly, if you take careful note, its not 'you' who gets the 'names' its usually me :)
Name calling is not my stong point.

The problem with change towards other cultures, is mainly that it inherrantly involves an automatic marginalization of the 'non them'.
Culture involves 'language' and customs and attitudes to many things. Example. the chinese see nothing wrong with utilizing rare and endangered animals as 'exotic food' and medicine. When in Malaysia some time back my host took me to a 'high priced' resturant which served only such "cussine" I saw some beautiful spotted jungle cats in cages waiting to be slaughtered for some businessmans delight.
Made me sick !

Have you ever had concreting done Molly ? did u have an Italian concreter ? If so, did you notice that all the sub contractors, the driver, the bobcat guy, were all Italian also ? Its not universally the case but it IS a very noticable thing. Discrimination based on race/ethnic origin is very real in the business world.

Communism does not ask 'can we succeed in a prosperous society', rather its says "What must we do, to bring about the proletarian revolution NO MATTER WHAT the exisiting society is like".?

Have a read of the Socialist sites online for further info.

You would be possibly surprised at some of the ways communism has sought to bring about social instability in order to capitalize on it for their own purposes. Don't you remember the author who wrote about that very thing, (which he personally experienced) the bombing in Hong Kong in this forum ?

Well there u go, I'm at the end of this post and not one 'name' :) ur home free.
blessings.

BOAZ_David

It's very scarey the sort of Australia you are advocating. Seems to be that if people are 'different' from you then there is something wrong with them. Why?

If it wasn't for Italians we wouldn't have cafes, more choice in food, a robust fishing industry, excellent concreting, films, music, books... and so many more unanamable things that have made Australia a better place to live in.....

If you want to go back and live in the White Australia policy pre-1950s fish 'n chip boring one dimensional place that this used to be don't take me! Thankfully - we have moved on from there to a diverse and inclusive Australia (though regressing somewhat with the Howard 1996-2005... government which will hopefully end one day soon).

Miranda,

David Boaz has mentioned that he has an Asian wife, which refutes your silly claims that he wants a 'white Australia'. We have to be selective about who comes into the country for social stability.

That means, PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO FIT IN. It sounds like you are motivated by a cancerous cultural cringe, rather than a common sense, pragmatic perspective. White anglo saxon Australia, Miranda, set up and maintain the infrastructure that allows migrants to flourish.

Not everyone 'waks' off about multiculturalism the same way you do Miranda. It has some benefits, and some disadvantages. It's time to get real about the disadvantages.

Miranda !
(Thanx Davo, your support is welcomed, glad someone is keeping track of things I write :)
You are missing the point... still. There is no denying cultural enrichment we have experienced due to different groups making Aus their new home. NOT a problem, the problem comes when groups get ORGANIZED politically on behalf of 'THEIR GROUP' and seek to influence the political stage and government policy to the specific advantage of their group over others. There is a name for that, and it starts with "D". My point is that we have to make judgement calls on the suitable 'type' and 'quantity' of people who come to our country. There is absolutely nothing 'scary' about that. Its called responsible government.

Me, afraid of 'different' people ? I hardly think so, I speak Indonesian, Malay, a tribal language of Borneo and I've lived with all these DIFFERENT people and have more respect for some of them than for my own crowd. I stand in awe of some indigenous people I've met and interacted with, ate with, lived with etc. But along with all that positive stuff, I DID learn a few lessons about people in diverse cultural situations. They are etched into my brain like the Tablets of the 10 commandments. It might be said that I speak with a degree of authority based on real world experience, rather than simple ignorant prejudice.
So, now I'm arrogant also ? :) (calling Xena)

The Error of your ways Miranda (as I see it) is that you are wide open to the positives but totally blind to the negatives in regard to migration. Perhaps because somehow you have settled on refugee advocasy as some kind of justification for your existence and hence now have a vested emotional and social interest in keeping the 'industry' going ? Like most people in that situation, a little bit of wise facts based balance is needed.

This post was supposed to be about alternative arrangements for detaining refugees (see original article) but lately has degenerated into an anti-immigration rant. No need to name names, you know who you are.

Sorry to tell you boys, but we are definitely a multi-cultural and diverse society with freedom for everyone to follow their beliefs. And with the way the Howard government is going with increased intakes of migrants we will be even more multicultural in future, regardless of what we do about refugees.
No need to worry about the migrants fitting in, they will find their way OK as previous migrants have over the past 200 years. The ones I worry about not fitting in are the British migrants who have lived here for years but won't take out Australian citizenship.

Of course there are plenty of people who are born in Australia who find it hard to fit in. For example, I always thought that one outstanding feature of Australians is tolerance of others. It is clear from some of the previous posts that there are some who fall short on that criterion.
Embrace diversity and enjoy life!

The federal government is planning to send currently detained Baxter (Port Augusta, SA) asylum seekers to Christmas Island to be incarcerated in a new jail there.

Any comments for/against that idea?

Miranda. there u go 'politicizing' a legitimate function of government again "Jails" sorry, they are not Jails, they are detention/assessment centres.
Now, (Rossco u can pay attention here too) we take in approximately THIRTEEN THOUSAND genuine, assessed refugees from many trouble spots a year, many BLACK people from Africa :) woooo shudder.. they are black, must be 'evil' .. we must 'fear' them.. etc etc so the slogans of those who rant against those of us who are interested in responsible government rather than immigration anarchy.... the FACT is, that you will NOT find me or others with sympathetic views whining, ranting, raving, shouting about THESE people because in our view they are working WITH the democratically elected government of this sovereign country ! We don't care if they even have 2 heads and a tail, we just care that they are on OUR terms, not some people smugglers or some obscure and biased and ethically compromized, corrupt UN committee, is this message getting through ? ROSSCO, Miranda Xena ? !

It seeems that when we say such things they are immediately filtered out by your political blinkers which allow you ONLY to see 'racist, anti immigration white anglo saxon protestant blah blah" etc.

Well, I REBUKE you in the name of truth and balance. ! hows that ! ?

Now goto your rooms and THINK about your ways.

Have a nice day :)

Miranda and any who have been following my posts.

I've just been watching a debate on SBS about Baxter etc, and heard Laury Ferguson and some liberal guy explain aspects of Lib/Labor policy.
I find I'm more attracted to the Labor one, which puts more of a human face to the detention while retaining detention as a primary managment tool for unlawful non citizens. That is probably the only major criticism I have of the Liberal policy, its tooooo 'privatized' when it is CLEARLY a government responsibility. I will never agree to privatized jails, immigration centres or health. These are unquestionably issues of State not private enterprise and NEVER for profit.