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