I used to be proud to be Australian, when I read articles like this, I hang my head in shame.

First, this situation is appalling, and must be sorted. Children cannot be kept in these conditions.

However, does any responsibility lie with the parents themselves? Quite simply, in most cases if the parents had not transgressed Australia's immigration laws, they would not be in the camps.

Compare this to the corby case... we are told (on this forum and others) to respect the indonesian justice system. Well, lets respect our system. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

But this cannot be applied to children obviously. Maybe a separate system of care homes should be provided to care for children while they are kept in detention. I guess its a bit hard to break families up like that though. Not sure what the answer is here.

When I see what has just happened in Spain, where the left-wing government has just given residency to seven hundred thousand illegal immigrants, I am comforted by the fact that we have a government that has had the guts to take on the internationalist lobby and control illegal immigration. The only criticism I would make of the current system is that there should be a procedure where these people can be placed in an overseas refugee camp where they will be safe from persecution, instead of being detained in Australia. The protagonists of unlimited immigration do not seem to realise how much worse this is going to get, when the world population increases by another 50% over the next few decades. Taking action now may prevent much harsher action in the future, such as the need to declare illegal immigrants to be enemy aliens liable to be shot on sight, or for the navy to use refugee boats for target practice.

Agreed,

It is nice to see the government providing a strong policy in this area. Other countries hold the aussie system up as a model to be aspired to.

In the UK, dispersal of illegal immigrants has led to tremendous social upheaval - unable to work they enter a shadowy world of illegal labour, bed and breakfast accomodation and hostility from the wider community. Asylum applications disappear into a vast backlog, and the system costs a great deal more than the Australian system.

People in the UK look enviously to Australia, as their welfare and housing systems are submerged in a tide of illegal immigration.

Maybe illegals with children who have not destroyed all their papers can be given some leeway?

I don't know how many boats have arrived here since the Tampa, but it's not very many. The governments crack-down on illegal immigrants have stopped them coming here in the first place, hence with less arrivals, there are less children subjected to detention. Deterring them from coming is the best way to solve the problem.

When I hear of things like this I am ashamed to call myself Australian. Fleeing a dangerous country to want a better life for your children is not something that should be punishable. These people come here for Australia's 'fair go' something it seems we no longer have.
These are real people. Compassion should not be lost amongst the politics.
Who is to say we would not do the same in their position.

Judy Cannon and some of the others who have posted seem to be trying to confuse illegal immigrants in search of "a better life" with refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution. While the boat people were still arriving asylum seekers found to be refugees spent an average of two months in detention. Admittedly some refugees were wrongly detained for much longer, but this needs to be balanced with the dangers of tempting people onto unseaworthy boats if detention is abandoned. Abandoning detention means that large numbers of illegal immigrants will try their luck at pretending to be refugees, as they do in Europe and America. In Britain only 21% of the very large numbers arriving in 1997-2002 were granted asylum, including after appeal. There were 87,000 asylum claims there in 2002 alone, not counting dependants. (Home office figures from the Migration Watch UK site, www.migrationwatchuk.org.)

Failed asylum seekers are often impossible to remove because they abscond, hide where they came from, and rely on home governments that won't take them back against their will. They undercut the wages and conditions of the local poor and compete with them for housing and public services. As Sir Anthony Green put it, "There is no point whatever in a 2 billion pound asylum process, if three quarters of those rejected stay on illegally."

Divergence repeats all the myths about asylum seekers in Australia. The simple facts are that mandatory detention has not deterred any asylum seekers. The number of asylum seekers increased for the first 8 or 9 years after mandatory detention was introduced. Secondly, the vast majority of arrivals in Australia were found to be refugees. The UK and European countries have a very different set of circumstances with a very different type of arrivals.

A large number of long-term detainees in Australia are now not asylum seekers in any case. They (and their children) still do not deserve years in prison until DIMIA can sort out what to do with them.

No one thinks it is a good idea for asylum seekers to risk their lives on unsafe boats. Providing alternatives and reducing the 'generation' of refugees is a far better approach. Some of that has happened.

There is no evidence of signficant absconding by asylum seekers in the community. There are thousands that have lived and continue to live in our community without a sign of any significant problem.

This is nothing to do with high or low levels of immigration. It is about how you treat people who arrive in Australia seeking protection from persection. Increasing their torment, separating their families and denying due process and the rule of law (at massive public cost) through mandatory detention does not 'deter'. What it does do is harm innocent people.

Andrew Bartlett: if our circumstances are so different from those of the rest of the world you should explain exactly why that is so, giving references, since you accuse me of repeating myths. After mandatory detention the boats eventually did stop coming, while Britain got about 40,000 applications for asylum last year, not counting dependants. Undoubtedly it did take some time after the policy was introduced to convince the people smugglers that the government was not going to back down. Has it occurred to you that not many people make false asylum claims here because they know they are likely to be found out and not be released from detention? Why should real refugees abscond? They know they are genuine.

I support evidence-based development assistance for poor countries, but it isn't going to reduce the incentive to put children on unseaworthy boats any time soon.

I don't have a problem with releasing children, since they are innocent victims. However, Australia can't afford to have open borders for families with children, which is apparently what you are proposing.

I have asked, over and over again, why we cannot use electronic surveillance for asylum seekers?
It is not ideal and should never be used on children, but at least it would allow asylum seekers to live in the community while their bona fides are checked. Under electronic surveillance ( a bracelet or anklet or similar) they cannot abscond or disappear into the community, but they and, most importantly, their kids, can live reasonable lives outside razor wire. It would also be immeasurably cheaper than our current system as well as more humane. Obviously if the wearer is found to be genuine the electronic surveillance device is removed and they are wished well. If they are not, they can be dealt with appropriately. Our borders remain protected and we can once again raise our heads as a humane and civilised country.
Yet, I have never received a response to this idea. Maybe there are valid reasons why it is not a better or more practical alternative to the current hideous system, but, if so, I'd love to know what they are. We are apparently using electronic surveillance with repeat sexual offenders in Qld so presumably it is a good way of keeping track of people. Mind you, I am not for a moment comparing asylum seekers with sexual offenders, please don't think that. In fact, we probably treat sexual offenders more humanely than some 3 year olds in this country, these days. At least they get a fair trial via a transparent process, the assumption of innocence and, if proven guilty, a finite sentence.

Your idea is a very good one, enaj, well worth following up where the main problem is that an asylum seeker is likely to abscond. However, in Europe there are also many cases where people can't be deported because they have no valid papers and it can't be proven where they came from. An asylum seeker might appear to be a West African or a Kurd, just as Cornelia Rau appeared to be a German, but they might have come from any of 4 or 5 different countries. No proof, no deportation. One German politician even got in the news a few years ago by proposing that his government give an African country $14,000 a head to take failed African asylum seekers, whether they came from that country or not. Sometimes the home country refuses to cooperate with deportation. I believe it was reported about 2 years ago that Australia had entered into a deal with Iran whereby they agreed to take back failed asylum seekers in return for increased legal immigration.

Even if they can't be deported, due to lack of proof of identity, its still cheaper and more humane to keep them under electronic surveillance. Not a fabulous solution, I grant you, but surely better than rotting indefinitely behind razor wire, and still not carte blanche to enter the country. I'm still old fashioned enough to believe in the old idea that it is better 3 guilty men are set free than one innocent man be punished unjustly and electronic detention would seem to allow us to manage both innocent and "guilty" effectively and in a civilised manner.

Children are the responsibility of their parents. These children in detention are far better off than when (if we are to believe it ) they were on the run or being persecuted in their own country. They are lucky that they are in detention. They could have been sent back to where they came from. Their parents are criminals and have broken our laws. They cost the Australian taxpayer more per head to keep them in detention than it costs to keep our criminals behind bars.
They are kept in luxury compared to where they came from, my message to them "Dont winge about your conditions just be glad you are safe and have a chance of a better life,Cop it sweet and if you are deported then you deserve to be, We are a fair country"

Aren't you lucky, Kezza, that you were born (or at least live) in a safe and prosperous environment. What a pity that you are unable to see why you might at least consider sharing some of that luck with others, particularly children.
Lucky to be in detention because its better than the country they are fleeing from? If that's lucky what do you call your good fortune? Or do you think you deserve your luck and they deserve their bad luck? Do you have any children? If you do, can you imagine what it might be like if you and they had been less lucky, born girls perhaps in afghanistan or children of any gender in Dafur? Might you, as a good parent, have done anything you could to get them to a safer, better country?
What kind of people are Australian's becoming?

Enja. I have 5 children 13 grand children all well and happy. what you are saying "lets open our doors to ALL the children of the world"
I have fought in 2 wars and I have seen the Cruelty man (& Woman) inflict on the children of the world, I have seen babies burnt, chopped up & starved by their Parents, So yes these children in detention are "lucky" at least they have a chance. Lets not kid ourselves, they are getting food and medical. Yes I feel sorry for the Kids that are deported for the actions of the parents.
So when you can lay claim to children & Grandchildren only then can you Judge others.
Reading your posts it seem that "It's your way or no other way"

Deported for the actions of your parents and sustaining psychological abuse as a direct result of a policy implemented by the Australian Government are now the same? Should you cop it sweet if your wrongfully deported? We've all seen the kind of 'medical' treatment obtained by Cornelia Rau whilst she was in detention. Children do not belong in detention. It may be the parents actions that put them there but it's the Australian government that keeps them there.
For those that say we will be inundated with boat people if there was no mandatory detention should note that for the first 5 years after it's introduction there was actually an increase in boat people.

enaj: If someone offered me a job that paid three times as much as I am getting now on condition that I wore an electronic bracelet, I would take it, so, I suspect, would you. If someone is concealing their identity, they are committing fraud and should not be rewarded by release into the community. Two year jail sentences have been proposed for such people in Britain. We should only accept electronic bracelets, with the right to live and work in the community, for people who might be genuine refugees and provided that they give up their rights to endless appeals.

ennaythac: Mandatory detention did stop the boats, just not instantly. The people smuggling networks were used to dealing with gutless governments in Europe and North America. They thought that Australia was bluffing or would soon back down under the influence of people like you. It took several years until even the most naive of their clients got the message.

Andrew Bartlett: If you doubt that mass migration, especially illegal, undercuts the local poor, see "The New Americans", the 1997 report of the American National Academy of Sciences. You can find references to peer reviewed papers that establish this also by Prof. George Borjas of Harvard (www.borjas.com), Prof. Vernon Briggs of Cornell and Profs. Donald Davis and David Weinstein of Columbia (www.cis.org). How many peer reviewed papers are necessary before an assertion ceases to be a myth? Even the pro-immigration Cato Institute accepts this. It just considers the American working poor acceptable collateral damage.

Divergence:
Suggesting we can only choose between an 'open door policy' or mandatory detention is absurd. No country in the world has an open door policy, they just have different ways of dealing with onshore asylum seekers.

Nor is this anything to do with mass migration. Australia's skilled migration intake has gone from approx 35 000 in 1999 to close to 100 000 next year. Our number of temporary resident 'migrants' is more than double that again. There are over 50 000 visa overstayers 'loose' in the Australian community, virtually none of who are asylum seekers - if they did seek asylum we would know who and where they are. In that sense, seeking asylum is the opposite of illegal migration - i.e. people who try to disappear into the community and remain without authorisation. Linking asylum seekers in Australia with 'mass migration' or 'illegal immigrants' confuses issues which have very little in common, hence the many myths around the issue.

To say "not many people make false asylum claims here because they know they are likely to be found out and not be released from detention" flies in the face of the evidence. The fact is people have stayed imprisoned in Australia for over 6 years before being recognised as a refugee, rather than return to danger. When people are "found out" (which I presume is a pejorative way of saying their refugee claim is unsuccessful), they are deported. The very small number who have no country that will take them would be in that situation regardless of whether they were locked up here indefinitely or not.

The notion of supporting indefinite jailing of people on the word of a bureaucrat or a politician, without any charge or trial, regardless of individual circumstance, with no scope for independent review of this decision to imprison, is such a dangerous notion that I am continually amazed that anyone living in a democratic country wants to defend it, let alone in relation to a group of people who clearly pose no threat to us at all.

Andrew Bartlett: You are like a person who argues that because we have had no polio epidemics in Australia for many years that we should therefore abandon vaccination. The asylum systems of developed countries are often weak points in the defenses against illegal immigration, just as doors screened by shrubs are weak points in the defenses against burglars. Of course, even in Europe and North America, many illegal immigrants get in by other means, but I have presented abundant references that huge numbers are getting in there by claiming asylum. They use the time delay before their hearings to embed themselves in the community and hide. Others don't even bother to hide because they know that the authorities won't be able to prove where they came from or that their home country won't cooperate with deportation. You haven't disputed my facts on this or that the local disadvantaged people are hurt by it.

I never denied that people are entitled to natural justice or that genuine refugees have been wrongly detained for extended periods. I am not opposed to reform of the system, just to its abolition. I don't oppose the release of stateless people who are cooperating. However, where people conceal their identity to avoid deportation they should be treated as the fraudsters they are. For people other than true refugees detention is not jailing. They are free to go anywhere in the world except Australia.

I haven't seen any posts on this and other similar forums suggesting an open door policy for refugees.

Just a more humane approach to the detaining and treatment of people claiming refugee status.

Divergence, your analogy re: abandoning polio vaccination is spurious - Andrew is not advocating abandoning processing rather he is proposing a fairer system where innocent men, women and children are not imprisoned indefinitely. Try actually READING the posts instead of REACTING.

Divergence:
Your polio analogy is specious. There is a provable scientific link between the incidence of polio and vaccinations. There is no link at all between boat arrivals and mandaotry detention (other than the contrary evidence that arrivals increased after mandatory detention was introduced). You may as well claim polio remains cured by mandatory detention, because both things are happening at the same time.

No one disputes that there are large numbers of asylum seekers in Europe and North American countries - there's no need for references. However, most of those countries also do not have a planned migration program like Australia and unlike Australia they also have other wider humanitarian assessments beyond just refugee crteria. Correcting or clarifying some of your other 'facts' takes more space than these comments allow.

It is simply not true to say that for "people other than true refugees detention is not jailing. They are free to go anywhere in the world except Australia." You seem to be assuming that other countries have the mythical open door policy that Australian justice advocates are also falsely accused of promoting. Those that are free to go, do so (or are sent). Whenever they are 'free to go' Australia sends them, whether they want to or not (as we should do, subject to the qualification that we clearly fail to give anything like fair and due process in many cases). Some cannot go (as your own post acknowledges about some asylum seekers in Europe) and some stay while they exercise their right to try to get a fair hearing - they may not win their case, but I don't think people should have to be jailed for years just for trying to enforce their rights under our laws.

In addition, no one suggests migration detention is never appropriate. What is inappropriate is its mandatory, indefinite indiscriminate nature, with imprisonment and punishment decided by bureaucrats and politcians, rather than an independent body.

Andrew Bartlett,
Your posts are much appreciated being rational, well informed and compassionate. May I ask you why the idea of electronic detention for asylum seekers is never considered? Is it because, as one poster suggested, it would not be seen as enough of a "deterrent"? Or are their other, better reasons? By the way, the idea of anyone using a child as a "deterrent" is surely morally abhorrent.

enaj:
it would certainly be preferable to what happens to children now. However, I think it would be inappropriate to do this to asylum seekers when (for example) it is not done to peple on parole who are charegd with serious crimes. The evidence shows the chances of absconding/disappearing by people on parole is much higher than asylum seekers awaiting decisions. It also reinforces the myth that asylum seekers are somehow criminals or dangerous.

However, as I said, it would certainly be a step up from jailing people indefintely.

There are very few visa options available for those wishing to apply onshore who did not come here with or currently possess a valid visa. Perhaps with the current situation of a shortage of skilled migrants Asylum seekers that are skilled could be given the opportunity of applying for these visas onshore.

Andrew Bartlett: You might have a look at the Migration Watch UK website, as they have collected the Home Office figures. From 1997-2002 21% of asylum seekers were granted asylum, including on appeal. 16% were granted exceptional leave to remain. Some of these were humanitarian cases that didn't quite meet the UN criteria, but in most cases the difficulty was in returning them, whether this was due to the home country, the asylum seeker or unavoidable circumstances. 13% were deported, and nearly all of the remaining 50% stayed on illegally. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people. Migration Watch (not the Home Office) blames this on such factors as the fact that the Home Office is swamped with appeals, that employers of illegal aliens are not prosecuted, and the lack of a national ID card. "The problem cannot be effectively tackled without fundamental change in the legal system to premit final decisions within weeks."

Most of those same factors would apply here. Releasing people who can't (not won't) go home and have already been detained for long periods of time, probably wouldn't cause any problems. However, if the arrivals started up again, people would have to be released after 90 days (under the Georgiou bills), would launch appeal after appeal, and would establish themselves and their families in the community so that as a practical matter they could not be deported. Success breeds success, so we would get more and more to try their luck. See Alan Anderson's recent column in the Sydney Morning Herald on this.

You say that mandatory detention had nothing to do with the boats stopping, but most people simply don't believe this. They are still getting asylum seekers in the countries that don't detain. Numbers are smaller than in the past, probably due to the world situation, but still substantial.

The abuse of immigrants and detainees in the United Kingdom was a precursor to the abandonment of universal ethical standards in relation to policing, prisons etc.

The mythical Britain of the 1950s has become lost beneath a sea of corruption and cruelty. First they tortured *their* women and children and then they did it to our own kind.

The general sense of official kindness vanished with the first dishonourable acts violating the sense of moral existence. The Britain of the 1950s was a lie, but it was also an aspiration

The UK *needs* high levels of forced labour to prosper. The issue is not too many migrants, it is too few. The Home Office operated a SBS scheme (Work Permits Sheffield) in cahoots with Ukrainian racketeers. Who cares about anything else when the Govt. is in bed with traffickers and slave traders? What is the point of keeping records? The Home Office allowed forged documents to be carried into British legations in suitcases. The British debate on imigration is a little preposterous when ultimately a gangster in Bucharest or Kyiv is in charge.

With the softening of mandatory detention children and families can now feel safe being able to live in the community. Then again, maybe not. Without appropriate financial support or the right to a work visa these people will be forced back into detention. They will be unable to support themselves or their children. Won't be entitled to medical if someone is sick or injured. Seems like another fine con job by the Howard government to me.