Congratulations on having the courage to speak up for a more humane refugee policy.
I wish you every success.

Er, maybe the reason there has been a decrease in asylum seekers to Australia is BECAUSE the immigration system is the way it is. Maybe if people don't want to be in the system, they should not come to Australia illegally. Australia has a generous immigration to legal immigrants - if you want to come here, do it properly.

I think the recent Federal election shows the electorate's support for the current immigration system. Plenty of other countries wish their immigration system was as successful as Australia.

It is possible to find some hard cases where people spend years in detention and are then found to be refugees, just as there are undoubtedly some innocent people in our prisons. However, the vast majority of refugees were released within a few weeks or months, so they would not be affected by Mr. Georgiou's proposals except for getting permanent residency. What makes these proposals the illegal immigrant's charter is the 12 month limit on detention. If the Immigration Department can't prove where an illegal immigrant falsely claiming asylum came from or if his home country refuses to take him back against his will, then he merely needs to wait out the 12 months, then be released to enjoy all the benefits of life in a First World country. No doubt he will tell his friends and relatives back home about it so they too can come and claim asylum.

Do we really want the huge numbers of such people that they have in Europe and America, such as the 87,000 asylum seekers who arrived in Britain in 2002, not counting dependants, only about 1 in 5 of whom were found to be refugees. I'm sorry for the world's poor too, but the solution to their poverty problems will ultimately have to come from them through making tough reforms and cultural changes, including bringing numbers into balance with resources, just like in Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea. Mr. Georgiou's real responsibility is to the disadvantaged Australians who will be displaced by the illegal aliens he is determined to encourage.

And now for the preselection battle for your seat Petro. I am sure that Costello will be looking for a branchstack to oust you for being a decent human being. Andrew Bolt has even been mentioned, so good luck with defeating them.

"Do we really want the huge numbers of such people that they have in Europe and America,"

This has never occurred in the past and will never occur. Australia is far too difficult and dangerous to get to. The myth of a flood of refugees is one of the ways that Howard has intimidated the population into voting for him.

"I'm sorry for the world's poor too"

Not sorry enough to inconvenience yourself, though, or even <gasp> take a small drop in your standard of living.

"but the solution to their poverty problems will ultimately have to come from them through making tough reforms and cultural changes, including bringing numbers into balance with resources, just like in Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea."

Actually, the solution is more likely to come from allowing poor countries to leverage their main asset: cheap labour. Unfortunately, rich countries prevent them from doing this through tarrif protection of uncompetative industries, and manipulation of poor economies through the IMF and World Bank.

"Mr. Georgiou's real responsibility is to the disadvantaged Australians who will be displaced by the illegal aliens he is determined to encourage. "

I challenge you to provide evidence of Australians who will be "displaced". What do you even mean by "displaced"?

Dave

I have got to say there is nothing more pathetic than that petition that online opinion is holding on mandatory detention. It looks like online opinion are pushing an agenda, and will rig the results to suit that agenda. Pathetic.

Refugees in detention centres has become a rallying point for the hopelessly naive, people without a clue and those who should go out and live in the real world

Why would you think that we would rig the results? I notice you haven't bothered to vote - that's a good way to ensure there is an overwhelming vote one way.

Petro, don't let the Davo's of this forum with his pathetic and cynical view take you off the path. I was finally, for the first time in a lot of years, proudly Australian, rather than having my head forced down the "cesspit, but greaaaaaat, toilet economy" of this govt. Maintain the rage, and it may get you somewhere. Thanks for the bill, whatever your reasons may be.

Don't be swayed by racist and ill-informed people who don't know their facts such as gw, Divergence and Davo their comments aren't worth reading. You are taking a desperately needed step showing humanity where it is badly needed and I wish you every success with your Bill. Good Luck Petro there are many of us who are right behind you. May be one day we will be able to hold our heads up again as Australians.
Polly

All in all, a well thought out article, except for one point I must disagree with.

Women and children are as capable of being terrorists as men are, and indeed, are often recruited as terrorists because of antiquated notions that they must be innocent due to their age or sex. Religion is a powerful motivator, and this influence is not restricted to men. Women and children are as capable of strong feelings about their faith or their cause as men are. They should not be excluded from going through the same necessary checks as the men.

It is, after all, for the safety of us all.

One interesting link is: http://www.terrorismunveiled.com/athena/2004/08/women_are_deadl.html

Why does Borofkin think it would be any cheaper to get to Britain through all of Europe than to Australia? Extended families can easily raise the money for people smugglers. The main deterrent is the difficulty of getting out of detention into the community, not the cost. Why does he think I have an extravagant standard of living, when he doesn't know me? According to the New Scientist environmental footprint calculator I consume at about the European average, i.e. less than the average Australian and probably less than Borofkin.

To see the real causes of world poverty he needs to take a look at the UN Human Development Index. Countries with similar cultures group together. This gives the lie to folks on the far Right who blame it all on race, as racially different people with similar cultures group together, as in Latin America, but also gives the lie to the those on the Left who want to blame it all on us. First World elites are equal opportunity exploiters. If he then looks at an environmental footprint site like Redefining Progress, he will find that there aren't enough resources to give everyone even a very modest European standard of living, even if all the resources were shared equally. Finally take a look at Harvard economist George Borjas' site (www.borjas.com): an 8.9% cut in real wages for unskilled US workers between 1980 and 2000 due to immigration, a lot of it illegal.

Penekiko, don't worry about Petro Georgiou's future. The business elite will reward him for intentionally or unintentionally giving them the open borders they crave - bigger domestic markets, sky-high real estate prices and lots of cheap, easily exploitable labour.

I applaud Petro Georgiou, and his Liberal supporters, for the stance they have taken on the issue of mandatory detention. I'd like to make a couple of comments:

Someone in a previous post said that,under Petro's bills, asylum seekers would be able to come to Australia and, after a year in detention, be released into the community permanently. This is not true.

What would happen is that asylum seekers would be able to appear before a Judicial Assessor(probably a retired judge). The judge would examine whether it is necessary to detain each person on the basis of these criteria
- are they a danger to the public?
- are they likely to abscond while their visa application is determined or – if unsuccessful – to avoid being removed from Australia?

This means that asylum seekers would be released only if they met these conditions, and, importantly, only whilst their asylum claim was being assessed. They would not be released on any permanent visa,but a bridging visa. If they came to the end of their assessment process and were unsuccessful, they would be deported. This seems like a very reasonable approach to me.

Onto the issue of people absconding. I don't think most Australians realise that it is only asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat who are locked up indetention. There are 8000 asylum seekers living in the community at the moment. These are the asylum seekers who arrive by plane, on a visa such as a tourist visa, and then claim asylum. They are not locked in detention, but live in the community on a bridging visa whilst their claim is processed. These people live peacefully in our community. We have no problems with thousands of them absconding (the 'absconders' are usually backpackers from Western countries who overstay their visas).

There is no reason at all why asylum seekers who arrive by boat can't (after health and security checks) be released to live in the community along-side those who come by plane.

Go Petro! At last some common sense and decency from the Liberal party.

I somewhat agree with buttonbright. I don't think that women should be treated differently to men in this regard. However I think the reasoning is that children, especially those under 12 shouldn't be in detention at all, but it would be inhumane and bad policy to release them without also releasing at least of their parents.

And the reason for at least locking up one parent for the 90 days is to make sure that the whole family isn't a security threat, so in this instance the father has been left as a deposit. This is a crude understanding and explanation for buttonbright, so if anybody knows better then they can explain it.

OK, so how is it racist (Polly) to say that Australia has immigration laws that should be respected, and the Australian system for upholding these laws works very well? Exactly which race am I abusing?

I repeat my earlier points; decreased number of refugees means the system works. The Australian electorate has shown no desire to change the system.

Why when we get something right in relation to crime (and breaking the immigration laws is a crime) do we want to change it? If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Ever lived in a country with very high levels of illegal immigration? The levels of crime, and illegal labour, soar and as other posters have noted, it is the poorer members of society that suffer.

What the hell is this bogeyman "racist". What exactly does it mean? And why is it something to be offended of? I've just spent the day with an Indian and a Maori, who were making 'racist' jibes about the chinese and aboriginals all day. If I said the same things they said, I'd probably get thrown in gaol, being white and all.
Put simply 'racism' is just an interaction between different races, not necessarily of the Hitler variety.

But that is the thing, I live in the real world. I don't live a cosy existence life inside academia, sheltered from the nastiness of human nature in some bubble of idealism.

Graham, I won't bother with your petition, since it is hopelessly lopsided. Seems like some socialist organisation was informed about the petition in advance, ready to sway the results one way.

Petro, seems like you are giving into peer pressure: trying to curry favour with academics (ageing hippies in their 50s and 60s)and assorted rich kids.

Davo,

Everyone on the Consultations mailing list were notified yesterday. The fact that left wing people have chosen to endorse it and forward it by 50 to 1 over right wing people tells me that overall, despite a majority of Australians disagreeing with Petro's bills, supporters of the bills feel more strongly about the issue then opposers.

This is largely because the pro billiers feel they need to work harder to reach their outcome, whereas people who support the status quo don't think that it is likely to be upset. If the boot was on the other foot and rebel backbenchers proposed some bills, you would be supporting it along with another 500 people or more, whereas only a dozen or do would bother opposing it.

There are 12 people when last I checked who agree with your viewpoint. If you have seen the diversity of opinion on OLO then you know that that is because only 12 people feel strongly enough to do so, not because of a leftwing plot. Why don't you join them, what do you have to lose?

Maybe us posters should be the govt. Re Davo i don't think that racism is beholden to whites. Still doens't make it right however. I remember being 18 and blonde (thanks L'oreal) and white and being chased off the beach by a bunch of very angry koori kids with stones and an 8 year old Koorie girl telling me a was a "white something". Appalled yes, but has long made me think. I was bouncing around in the 80s thinking sexism was over! It wasn't, never was. Sadly, I don't think it ever will be. But i live in hope! That no matter, in this capitasist age, that no matter my race, religion, gender, sexual preference, child bearing capacity, or the colour of my hair, that shouldn't matter. Now, what country you are comimg from and wanting to buy into this is another story. But if any posters agree that this govt brings compassion and accountability into - well, you just as well drown kittens! It all depends on whether you're prepared to treat human beings like human beings no matter their circumstance.

We do live in this human world, let's cut us some slack, like we would do for the bears, crocs, sharks, etc.

Those of you who are offended about being called racist should bear in mind the American joke: "A racist [or Nazi in some versions] is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal or neo-conservative." Personally, I don't give a damn about race and think that immigration is a good thing in moderation. The difference between me and the folks on the other side is that I don't think resources are infinite or that the Australian environment or culture (which is worth preserving) have unlimited resilience.

It is hard to answer Motema as he has access to the full text of the bills. Even if I did, I'm not a lawyer. However, see Alan Anderson's column in today's Sydney Morning Herald. He is a lawyer and says that the bills effectively limit detention to 90 days. This might not help the backpacker who overstays his visa, but will be pure gold to phony asylum seekers. Anderson is worried about a massive blowout of illegal immigration followed by the collapse of the welfare state and a public shift to the far Right. A bridging visa is as good as permanent residency, which I never mentioned. Our open borders media owners just have to focus the cameras on those sobbing children, whenever a family is threatened with deportation. It is naive to think they won't be allowed to stay. In fact you folks on the other side ought to ask yourselves why you get so much media oxygen as opposed to advocates for the intellectually disabled, for example.

Thank you Penekiko, and I understand your explanation perfectly well, but I still think that it is a bit of an assumption to assume the female is the safer of the two, it is still is a bit rife with sexism and the assumption that females are the "gentler" sex and therefore safer.

And the matter of children (as the article addressed it) was children under 18. I think we all know from current youth violence all over the world, that there are no real age restrictions as to when violent behavior begins. Very young children have been used as suicide bombers, and there are those as young as 8 bearing arms willingly for terrorist organizations, generally with their parents support. On talking to a Desert Storm vet, one of her worst problems there was that many of the "enemy" (in this case the Iraqi army under Saddam) had barely hit puberty, aged 13 or 14. That was very difficult for her to rationalize, but they were shooting at her. Hard for Westerners to deal with certainly, but a common and excepted practice in the Middle East.

The fact is, it seems, that immigration must take each case on a personal basis, as they should be doing now, and although I don't particularly like the idea of small children (I'm speaking of primarily toddlers) being separated from their parents, perhaps if detention is more detrimental to their mental health, that should be considered. I also believe that processing times should be stepped up for the parents, giving them priority over non parents. That may already be the case, I'm not certain.

Davo,

The poll isn't "mine", it belongs to Rights Australia. Are they the "socialist" organisation you are referring to? The National Forum exists to facilitate the activities of all sorts of groups who support the site. If one of our other institutional members wanted to post a poll or petition we would do that for them as well.

Sounds like a cop-out to me. The whole process is completely transparent. Anyone can vote and the results are displayed on the page as the votes occur. And because of the way this site runs it actually provides the possibility of supporting or opposing the proposition. You seem to be suggesting that only propositions with which you agree ought to be posted.

Davo contends:

"I've just spent the day with an Indian and a Maori, who were making 'racist' jibes about the chinese and aboriginals all day".

While the factual basis of this assertion is plausible I reckon you've just invented this to support your own redneck views. But that’s what makes you such a brave boy now don’t it bro!

I am actually not opposed completely to the idea of locking people up. As long as the conditions are humane, which at the moment they're not and they are promptly charged with a crime, given a defence team and allowed to settle the matter in a fair court.

It would at least make sense if "You are hearby sentenced to 10 years prison along with your 3 year old daughter and mentally ill mother for the crime of illegally entering Australia", even if it was totally inhumane, unreasonable etc... After the 10 years they would be deported.

But of course no crime has been committed as it is not a crime to seek asylum, even if you are forced to enter Australia illegally. If it was a crime people would be charged and sentenced like in mmy above example. I am very confused.

I agree with most of Petro Georgiou's proposal. I may not be fully aware of all the laws that are involved here but I was under the impression that Australia was and is a signituary to the United Nations Convention for Refugees. With that in mind the part I am not sure about is that if someone is found to be a genuine refugee they will be allowed to remain in Australia. Isn't Australia obligated to inform the United Nations that refugees have arrived on our shores and are needing a safe haven. Australia should only have to take its quota of these refugees and other copuntries called upon by the United Nations to open there hearts and countries to the rest. It is the idea that everyone will be allowed to stay HERE that is so off putting to many Australians. Many peopele now Australian citizens have lined up at embassies around the world to immigrate here. That's where the queue jumping mentality steps in. Please use all available means not just the local National Government but the World Community.

The saddest thing in all of this is that ever since John Howard blew his dog whistle around the time several hundred desperate adults and children perished en route to a supposedly safe place - Ugly Australians have felt entitled to mock caring people.... people whose imagination and empathies don't stop at the borders of this former colony.

If my family had been in danger because of tyranny in my home country, I hope my parents would have had the courage to sell up everything to get us out by whatever means it took. I hope I would have the courage to do the same for my own children. Sadly, the Ugly Australian can't imagine having to get off their arses to save themselves and their own families, so they condemn and cruelly misrepresent those who have had to do those things. The Ugly Australian has no imagination, hence no ability, to empathise at all. Of course it's easy to take the greedy, self-serving short sighted path - the best option certainly for people who don't want to be joined by others with more initiative, more courage and - yep - more 'ticker' than they have. What a pity. What a lost opportunity and waste.

And lest I be accused of glorifying all refugees, I acknowledge that some who slip through are quite possibly entirely ordinary. But so what?! They should fit in very well......

Interesting to cast your eyes over these posts, seeing each one of us firstly as a Jew, gay or gypsy, and then as a 'native' German or Pole in 1938. Then to predict who among us would have condemned, and who among us would harboured the minority person at risk from the mob.....

It is telling that one of the most common insults used in John Howard's Australia is to call someone a 'do-gooder'. So Fiona you are dirty filthy low down do-gooder, thats what you are, a do-gooder.

Hey Fiona, does your concern for minorities extend to white South Africans? Here is a link specifically for you: http://www.africancrisis.org/photos16.asp

Ranier, I don't make things up. The context of the conversation I referred to was fruit picking in a town called Robinvale, where one of the convesants lived and worked for a while.

Davo, read your own words, it intimates that that the conversation was recent, yesterday? not in the past tence as you now assert "where one of the convesants lived and worked for a while" . I'd stop while your ahead mate.

This proposal seems like a good idea to me. To the naysayers, I point this out: Petro Georgiou is not suggesting we do away with mandatory detention altogether, and he's not suggesting that we "open the gates" and let anyone who wants come in to the country. Sure, some leftists and refugee activists are suggesting this, but Petro isn't. This bill is solely about letting the asylum seekers out for a time while they're being processed, rather than having them locked up. They're out in the community while their claims are being processed rather than in a detention center while their claims are being processed. It's hardly a radical change in the government's current policy, but it is a much needed step in the humane direction, in my humble opinion.

Gee Rainier, you really do look at the fine details, don't you? In another forum you gloat about travelling the world and speaking several languages. Was that on a contiki tour?

In fact, I question whether your global travels is actually true. Looking at the finer details, in the past and the present tense, I find you to be a bitter and twisted soul.

People in other parts of the world speak several languages out of necessity, unlike you, who does so out of pretention. The Australian cultural diversity you idealise is fake because it is very, very deliberate.

Anyway, a lesson learned, never illustrate a point with real life experiences. Get off your high horse and back to earth, mate.

The languages I speak are Australian, my parent’s languages. Languages, that were here before English, languages that were a part of a linguistic diversity of over 500 different languages.

Work that out Einstein.

The countries I've traveled to are in the Asian pacific. I speak your [only] language out of necessity and I’d even go so far as to contend that I speak and write it better than you. But hey, I'm not competing, just pointing out the facts, cobber, digga, mate.

Me bitter?

No! How could I possibly be bitter when I can find clowns everywhere I go [just like you] to play with? Ha!

My flame wars are far more entertaining for outsiders than yours.

Settle Petals, this is getting nasty and you guys are making some valid points, so don't stoop too low. Firstly, considering the reports that are coming out, I think we can all validly question our treatment of asylum seekers. It's interesting that the men women and children are being separated out. Rightly so? After all, the children/infants had no decisions to make. Coming from the countries that they do, most of the women would have followed their husbands into the decision the husbands made. I don't think any wife in say, Iraq, would have had the luxury of saying either to her husband or the hierarchy, "Sorry honey, you try and make it in Australia, I have a great lifestyle and career happening here, I'll sell the house and follow". Petro Georgiou is rightly arguing it is time for accountability in handling asylum seekers. Any ministerial portfolio should fundamentally be accountable to its impact on its recipients. As tax payers, we would all argue that if this bastardisation was happening in the taxation portfolio, resulting in us missing out on our rights to a proper tax return, we'd all be screaming and calling for an inquiry (and rightfully). A little bit of compassion and accountability are long overdue and have nothing to do with opening any so called floodgates.

I love you guys.

Davo, I make no comment in this thread about the white South Africans you mention, other than to express an unqualified hope that the murderers of those among them who have been killed will be found and convicted under South African law.

I think it's gormless (or more likely, diversionary) to construe my earlier post as suggesting that I am, or should be, "concerned" about any and all "minorities", which I certainly do not.

So where would YOU have aligned yourself in 1938 Germany or Poland, Davo? Who did the greatest harms at that time? The "keep them out" advocates? or the ones who provided safe harbour?

An old pragmatist saying “If it ain’t broken – why mend it?”

Simply our current detention policy works perfectly well as it is. It detains those who would choose to usurp our national sovereignty for their own purposes and impose their anarchistic expectations upon the Australian population. That they involve women and children, in no way diminishes their abusive expectations.

The success of the policy is reflected in the number of boats which are not sailing from Indonesian ports to dump illegal migrants on Australian shores. If we stuff around with introducing maximum time limits on detainees or releasing their women and children freely into society I would ask the following questions–

How many more illegal migrants would be encouraged knowing their families be given free rein when or shortly after arriving on these shores?

Noting who will subsidise those women and children’s existence?

Illegal migrants are illegal migrants – playing politics and employing faux-compassion is low strategy which ignores the damage a flood of illegal migrants does in creating a underclass of easily exploitable pseudo-slave workers driven to participate in the black and criminal economies which have no requirement for work permits, tax registration or other social credentials which we are all (supposedly) participants to.

Well the argument here is that our current detention policy *doesn't* work perfectly well as it is. We're not arguing for change for the sake of change - we're saying that the current system is faulty in that it locks up for extended periods people who don't deserve to be locked up, and thus must be changed.

And lets stop being ridiculous about the intention of asylum seekers shall we? They didn't wake up one day and say "I know, let's usurp Australia's national sovereignty and impose anarchist expectations upon the Australian population!" Call me naive, but I'm guessing their thoughts were more along the lines of "I can't go on living in this hellhole dictatorship, please help me!".

***How many more illegal migrants...?

Very possibly not at all. According to this article [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_detention_in_Australia ] Mandatory detention was introduced in 1992 with a limit of 273 days of detention. It also says the 273 day limit was scrapped in 1994. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm interpretting this correctly then we've had our current rules regarding time in detention in place since 1994. This means that the threat of indefinite detention did nothing to deter all those boat people arriving on our shores between 1994 and the 2001 election. And anyway, punishing people who do get here as a deterent for people who may or may not try to get here is utterly ridiculous. You do not need to lock up people to stop illegal immigration, it can be done another way (and I suspect is being done another way, given the magical ineffectiveness of mandatory detention as a deterrent pre-2001).

***who will subsidise...?

Probably the same people who subsidise their existence in detention centers right now - Australian taxpayers. They could even subsidise themselves if they were given a visa that allowed them to work.

Illegal migrants are people, just like you and me. Read that again - these people you want to lock up experience reality just the same as you do. Would you deserve to be locked up if you were in their position?

Good last point Albert (they are just like us etcetera).
Petro Georgiou may well be calling for compassion and accountability now, but many Australians have been saying this for years. For me, the inability of those on both sides of federal politics to agree to universal principles of humanity and human rights in the development and implementation of domestic policy that contributes to the wedging and dog whistling that Howard et al have so callously used. Our country is signatory to 1951 Refugees Convention and Protocol that provides the framework to guide policy.

But it is in the political interpretation of this protocol that sees it being used for domestic political gain. Back in 2000 Phillip Ruddoch announced that the Government was reviewing the interpretation and implementation of the Refugees Convention in Australia.

He went on to say that “Where necessary the Government will consider introducing legislation to ensure that only the obligations accepted by Convention parties are taken into account in our refugee determination processes,"

And:

"The Australian Government is focused on offering protection to those in the most vulnerable positions. If we do not take this action, public support for the Convention is at risk."
Who was Ruddock speaking about when he declared public support for the convention was at risk and a risk to whom?

And now we see Petro coming out after five years and asking for a compassionate approach in policies that he would have supported back in 2000?
What a load of crock.
http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media_releases/ruddock_media00/r00088.htm

Albert – the decline in the number of illegal immigrants seeking “economic refugee” status (the asylum seeking status was discarded somewhere along the journey of a dozen countries or so from the one which they fled to reach these fair shores) is evident of the success of the current policy – no point in getting petty about it.

Your point with having a visa with which to work undermines the benefit of selective and controlled migration versus rampant and uncontrolled flooding (suggest you look at the state of Turks and others in Germany or many other ethnic minorities who have invaded parts of western Europe to see the disaster which follows that strategy).

Ultimately, your remarks about people ignoring Australia’s right to defend its territorial integrity shows a complete lack of understanding about how this world works (not just Australia). Lets put it this way – If I decided to illegally enter another country, infiltrate their communities and gain whatever economic advantage I could through illegally debasing their social values – I guess they might want to detain me and see exactly what right I had to be their – they would treat illegal migrants not quite exactly the same as we – they would treat them a whole lot worse.

If the current policy works so well, what difference will a petty change such as letting them out of detention after a while make? Like I mentioned earlier, Petro Georgiou isn't arguing for an "opening of the floodgates", it's a minor change. And like I argued before, a system of indefinite incarceration wasn't a deterrant between 1994-2004, why would it start working now? If we really want to curb illegal immigration we should not be doing it by punishing people who are already here, but by preventing it from happening in the first place - ultimately by eliminating poverty and such but more practically by asking the Indonesian government (and any other relevant governments) to crack down on it at their end.

I see where you're coming from regarding the skilled labour comment, but I'm not talking about "rampant uncontrolled flooding". I was suggesting that the asylum seekers who would hypothetically be let out of detention under the system Petro suggests be allowed to work rather than relying on welfare payments.

What's this "infiltrate their communities" and "illegally debasing their social values" stuff? From what I've heard asylum seekers who have been declared legit refugees have gone on to become welcome and productive members of the community.

The pro status quo camp is boring, repetitive, predicable, off the air and unreasonable in this thread. They resort to phrases such as 'the real world', that says it all. Now I am not denying that there are people in Australia who could reasonably and effectively argue the case for immigration status quo, but none are commenting on this forum.

The general quality of pro georgiou responses has been far higher. So if you think you have a legitimate case, put it such that read above. You haven't yet decided if you are going to have a flame war or an intellectual debate, which is why only one half of the debate at the moment is pulling their weight. Remember, threads should be entertaining for outsiders as well as insiders.

There is nothing wrong with the policy.It works.Refugees need to processed faster and only be allowed one appeal.Many would then simply saved the anguish of internment and be freed in the country of their origin.

Refugees are supposed to go to their nearest country for refuge.Why do so many travel half way around the world to reach Australia?Could these people merely be economic refugees?There are 20 million refugees and at least a billion poor potential refugees;is our country to be the solution to all the world's ills?

Free the children and you will have to free the parents who will evaporate into our society ,creating an under class of cheap labour that will diminish us all.

Does it matter that they came across half the world to get here? The fact is they are here now, and now is all that matters. You can't go back in time and tell them to stop when they get to Pakistan.

We haven't had any new boat people arrive on our shores since around the 2001 election. I don't see this changing any time soon and as I've argued earlier I don't believe releasing asylum seekers from detention after a set amount of days would change this either. Given these assumptions, where does this "underclass of cheap labour" the lock-them-up brigade keeps talking about come from? And is there any evidence to suggest that the majority of illegal immigrants do take "cheap labour" jobs?

There are just under 500 detainees at Villawood at the end of May 2005. There are between 60-70 children in detention at the end of May, with between 20-30 at Villawood.

As a fortnightly visitor to Villawood, I am aware that at any one time over the last few months, there were only about a dozen or so detainees who are refugees - the rest are visa overstayers. While the proposed private member's bills are a significant move in the right direction, they deal only with the detention policy of refugees. They do not address visa overstayers the likes of the now released Virginia Leong and her three-year old daughter, Naomi.

We need greater clarity in the current debate as to what the purported softening electorate considers to be appropriate treatment of any detainee under the current system. Are we saying that a sliding scale of inhumane treatment is acceptable or unacceptable depending on whether the detainee is an Australian resident (think Cornelia Rau), refugee or visa overstayer? Or are we saying that the whole immigration and detention system needs overhaul albeit small step by small step?

typical communist do-gooder!

Ad hominem, Penekiko. Better to play ball than play the person. I don't think an argument has been advanced.

You're right that an argument wasn't advanced in that comment, but it refers to a comment I posted previously where the argument was advanced that pro immigration status quo supporters are so lost for reason in their arguments that they resort to phrases such as 'in the real world' and 'do-gooder'.

If in doubt as to the interpretation, I would take 'do-gooder' as a badge of honour, kinda like some people take 'un-Australian' as a compliment. I threw the word communist in to make it all the more ridiculous.

Very occasionally, debates such as these give rise to comments that need to be separately preserved.

I would like to propose that the forum moderators instigate a competition for comments that rise above the ordinary, both the good and the bad. We can collect them in a separate thread somewhere, and vote for the champion of champions at the end of the year.

I'll start the ball rolling with my nomination for the "Mind-boggling, Breathtaking Arrogance" category.

"Free the children and you will have to free the parents who will evaporate into our society ,creating an under class of cheap labour that will diminish us all."

A gem.

In proposing it, I would like to point out both its delicious smack of snobbery, as well as the subtle, but marvellously emotive and evocative choice of the word "evaporate".

Albert:

If you want evidence that illegal immigrants can form an "underclass of cheap labor" take a look at California. Historian Victor Hanson's "Mexifornia: A State of Becoming" provides a good overview and the various US restrictionist sites like Vdare and Numbers USA provide numerous articles on the subject. You can always check their facts against independent sources. You will find that unskilled wages have been reduced and that social mobility is down. The public education system has gone from the best in the US to the second worst. A number of hospitals around the state have closed because the federal government mandates certain kinds of free care to illegal immigrants and they cannot afford to stay open under those conditions. The Salinas Library also closed this year. Its community can no longer meet the needs of the illegal immigrant population and still afford it. Basically the problem is that people on extremely low wages cannot afford to pay enough taxes to fund the public services that they use. The rich people who really do benefit from their presence have ways to avoid paying taxes.

Its WORLD REFUGEE DAY on June 20 2005.

for those who care...

Rainer,get involved with the real problems facing our country.We have bloated govt bureaucracies,we have no money to fund their superannuation.In the next 15 yrs the Commonwealth has to find $131 billion and we only gross $8 billion pa GDP, much of which goes overseas to foreign shareholders.Then we have all the State Govts which have also unfunded super liabilities.There are 1.2 million state public servants and to this all our council workers and we have economic meltdown.When the baby boomers begin to retire,this country will be in dire straights.We will have less wealth and more liabilities.Why do you think we are trying to flog off anything we can lay our hands on?In doing so we are we are digging a deeper hole for future generations.

We have more pressing problems at home,that don't auger well for all our futures.Concern about refugees will be very low on our priorities.We are headed for some really tough times.

Certain posters here will no doubt be tuning out to the G8 concerts and slagging off certain rock stars for trying to change the world. I have no interest in joining any competition of a poster that judges who has got the most unreal comment. It's not Big Brother, it's about sharing opinions without personally slagging off because you don't agree. For the poster that said that for illegal immigrant cheap labour, we should look at Mexifornia, well! my limited knowledge of US history is that California was once frequented, and perhaps populated by "Mexicans" before the US decided to own it. Invaders? They are hardly trespassing by crossing the border, but hey! they're breaking the law these days. Not many Republicans bitch about the fact they're employing those "illegal immigrants", that's why it is such a lucrative business in the US where these "immigrants "can find employment. It hardly has anything to do about what's happening here.

Albert, keep going, you're making the most sense.

Arjay, I thought that this particular forum was about asylum seekers and refugees?.

And…by the way…

Its just an observation but your assertions have an eerier resemblance to Pauline Hanson and the League of Nations boogie man conspiracy theories that scared the bejesus out of the elderly and the gullible.

It reminds me of a type of moral and economic panic narratives that fits very well with the ideological world of the Far Right sects.

I'm not saying for one moment that you are far Right, but your warnings are reminiscent of those 'prepare or we perish' speeches that were popular at the turn of the last century when the White Australian Policy hung proudly on the lounge room walls in respectable Australian homes.

These days we get sent an array of ridiculous fridge magnets from Prime Minister whatsizname.

Sorry to disappoint , but I’ll happily be supporting World Refugee Day here in the real world on the 20th. If you'd like to support it too go to http://www.unhcr.org.au/WRD2005.shtml to find out where its being held in your capital city.

Divergance:

I haven't checked out the sources you've mentioned, but assuming what you're saying is true then perhaps fears of an "underclass of cheap labour" caused by mass illegal immigration aren't unfounded. However... :-) I'm going to go back to my argument that Petro's plan to release asylum seekers from detention after a set amount of time won't lead to an increase in illegal immigrants.

Could someone explain what effect a low minimum wage would have on creating this "underclass of cheap labour"? I readily admit I don't really know much about this at all, hence me asking the question :-) According to this website [ http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm#California ], the minimum wage in California is US$6.75/hour, which according to this website [ http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi ] is equivalent to AU$8.80/hour. The Australian minimum wage is $12.30/hour, [source: http://www.actu.asn.au/public/about/minimumwage.html ] which is quite a bit more.

Congratulations to Petro Georgiou for standing up and saying what should have been said years ago - this is a disgrace - Amnesty International condemned mandatory detention in 2001 - what are we thinking as a nation locking these people up for up to six years with no conviction??
As a new Australian citizen I am appalled and embarrassed, but I do not think it is too late to turn the tide and try to undo some of the damage that has been done.
I have been to Baxter and met and spoken to people there - they are human beings just like you and I - not terrorists, but rather architects and bakers and environmental engineers - their brains are being wasted (literally) trapped in these cages like animals - go and speak to them yourselves before judging and condemning them to this life of hell...
I have written an essay about my visit to Baxter - if anyone is interested in reading it contact me at mandi@weensyweb.com

Albert “Does it matter that they came across half the world to get here? The fact is they are here now, and now is all that matters. You can't go back in time and tell them to stop when they get to Pakistan.”

Di “my limited knowledge of US history is that California was once frequented, and perhaps populated by "Mexicans" before the US decided to own it. Invaders? They are hardly trespassing by crossing the border, but hey! they're breaking the law these days.”

The world to day is the world of passports, national sovereignty etc.

If Alberts Pakistan travellers had set sail 150 years ago and arrived here – no one would have known and they most likely would have assimilated into whatever community they found.

If Di’s Mexicans did the same thing the outcome would have been the same – build or assimilate into the existing community – although by then the US was rapidly defining its borders and national integrity and the right to refuse entry to migrants from Europe with communicable diseases like TB etc.

As Abert rightly says – “You can't go back in time” but Albert – we are talking about "NOW". You cannot ignore the rules of entry that these illegal migrants attempted to usurp. We have no "free entry – just arrive with suitcase" system any more. Today entry is a documented and pre-approved process – if we applied Alberts logic – the only requirement is to “arrive” then I can think of one of the few remaining communist countries which has a few hundred million who would most likely take him up on the offer – for economic reasons alone.

I have no desire to see Australia become the last bolt hole for all and sundry regardless of character or what intent they may have displayed and regardless of whatever it is they may claim to be “refugeeing” from

Col said --> "I have no desire to see Australia become the last bolt hole for all and sundry regardless of character or what intent they may have displayed and regardless of whatever it is they may claim to be “refugeeing” from"

and about "just arriving with a suitcase"

Most of them have nothing when they arrive - nothing but a few shreds of clothing on their backs...

Please, at least go and meet some of these people before you cast judgement on them - the people I met were just ordinary people like you and me, who have been put under extraordinary circumstances - abuse, persecution, made to do things and had things done to them that you or I could not even begin to imagine in our most horrific nightmares.

They are on the most part qualified, educated people who just want to give a little to this country - they have not sought out Australia to live in - mostly they had no idea where they were going or thought they were going somewhere else - do you really think they had heard of Australia in Iran or Pakistan? Most of the people I speak to in the USA don't even know about Australia. Some of the people I spoke to thought they were going to Canada.

They just need assylum - or at the very least they need to be not locked up for up to six years without being convicted of anything. Its just wrong and illegal in the eyes of the International community, morality and in the eyes of Amnesty International.

Di: I didn't post on "Mexifornia" because I wanted to debate the rights or wrongs of the Mexican War (or the Norman Conquest for that matter). An injustice probably was committed, but it was more than 150 years ago. There were very few Mexican settlers in California at the time, and I believe they all got US citizenship if they wanted it. Nor was I trying to imply that things in California are bad because Mexicans are bad people. The same dynamics would exist if the illegal immigrants were Swedes.

Albert: The best explanation is economist George Borjas' 2004 paper "The Demand Curve for Labor is Downward Sloping" (available at www.borjas.com). Basically labor behaves like eggs or peaches: when there is an excess supply of it, it gets cheap. The US minimum wage actually has nearly a third less purchasing power than it did in 1968. Barbara Ehrenreich's book "Nickeled and Dimed" explains what it is like to live on such a wage. Illegal immigrants can't even insist on the minimum or on minimum health and safety standards. The same thing is happening here. There are award wages, but enough unpaid overtime is worked to be the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Very few people work without pay for fun; they are afraid of getting the sack if they don't. This is one reason why the business elite loves mass migration, legal or otherwise.

Mandi: No one, not even Col Rouge, is suggesting that we refuse to take in people fleeing from persecution or detain them for longer than is needed to establish their bona fides. We are concerned about illegal immigrants who get in by falsely pretending to be refugees. Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention (available on the Web) requires refugees to seek asylum in the first safe country they come to. Col Rouge was raising the question of whether a refugee who passes through safe country A to get to rich country B loses his claim to refugee status.

Mandi “they have not sought out Australia to live in”

So they were out for a Sunday row and lost track of the time?

Trans-navigation of the Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, Timor or Arafura Seas (or the Southern Ocean for that matter), is not something undertaken by anyone who is not expecting to arrive in Australia –

You write using a simplicity of logic I would expect from someone born yesterday.

FYI some of us have been around a little longer.

I refer you to Divergence’s post – for further explanation.

As for “They just need asylum” – they achieved “asylum” once they crossed the national border from whence they fled.

Divergence, agree completely with what you posted re minimum wages - illegals debase the economy by working well below the minimum wage laws - beggars are not choosers and when you cannot go to an arbitration tribunal for a fair wage, because you have no legal right to work in the first place, their is not alot government or anyone else can or will do about it.

The West's, and Australia's, obsession with border protection is unrealistic
By Greg Barns - posted Thursday, July 10, 2003

"But when it comes to people, both the major political parties in this country want to maintain a fortress mentality. Both are refusing to face up to the reality as described by a leading European affairs commentator, Neal Ascherson. Mr Ascherson has pointed out that the poor world is moving into the rich world on a scale never seen before.

The realities are that this movement is in the long-run unstoppable, that Europe (and for this one can include Australia) is becoming dependent on immigration as its populations age and diminish, and the distinction between asylum-seeker and economic migrant is meaningless. As Australians we cannot take the upside of globalisation including cheaper products and new industries and ideas without taking the other side, represented by more people wanting to live where better life and economic growth will be"

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=453

Like it or not, welcome to the real world

I agree. I find the increasing obsession held by many in wealthy Western countries about 'border protection' a little bit 'rich' (pardon the expression), given that the globalised economy has overwhelmingly benefited the industrialised world to the detriment of the majority, i.e. the 'developing' world. Particularly given that we show little compunction in sending our military to the very places (from which many of these same refugees have escaped) in order to further the geopolitical projects of our 'allies'. Think Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Vietnam etc etc etc.

People who are economically disadvantaged, displaced or persecuted (or various combinations thereof) will inevitably move across arbitrary borders in order to seek security and opportunity. Rather than trying to stem the inevitable tide (and jettisoning our humanity in the process) we should welcome genuine refugees, skilled immigrants and separated families, in order that we can maintain our population into the future.

Unusually, I find myself in almost complete agreement with Greg Barns.

I reckon the debate about refugees in detention is not really about the refugees. More often than not, it is about broader political agendas. It is really about the future we want for this country.

Some posters seem to think Australia should be built entirely on immigration, whilst others don't.

A previous poster mentioned that people from the poorer world are moving into the richer world like never before. This is not a good thing. Poorer countries are losing their most healthiest, educated and motivated citizens to the richer countries. Inadvertantly, fleeing a strife torn country for a better life entrenches the country further into poverty. And people who flee are scorned by fellow countrymen unable to simply run away.

I would of thought the western demand for cheaper goods increases wealth for other countries. Look at China, for example. Most cheap consumer goods come from China, a country with the fastest (or one of) growing economy in the world. The same could be said about India.

Anyway, the mass movement into western (or richer) countries should be discouraged. Poverty is created by numerous factors; mainly corruption and over-population. Eliminate these factors and the refugees will be set free!

It's true you can't have illegal immigrants (or Di's Mexicans) I didn't know I bred them! undermining minimum wages which can certainly be a problem in any country. However, it does not solve the problem or address the issue of asylum seekers in this day and age. I am with the poster that has visited and spoken to these very real people in detention, that did not have the opportunity to come from a country that allowed them to apply to immigrate and quickly assimilate. Tick a box a) Canada b) NZ c) Australia. They are real people with our needs, our skills, to batten them down and pretend they aren't up on a par with us is rather heartless and judgemental.

As an Australian, we are in a rather luxurious positon of not being able to comprehend what it must be like when your political views are viewed and (often) misinterpreted by the State as being treacherous and threatening. Half of us posters would have been found out and taken out the back and shot by now on this forum in certain countries. Viva la freedom of speech! As a strong minded individual, I would be searching all over the planet for a country that I could safely live in and would allow me to make a living for my family. As a human, I think that I deserve that right and often I might not have the "running for my life" time to "queue" even if my country allowed me to. Not my fault that the country I happen to be born in doesn't allow it to happen.

Col: "You write using a simplicity of logic I would expect from someone born yesterday"
well a personal slur will prove a lot
I may not have the university education, or the years behind me that you do, but I believe what I have been told, and that is straight from the detainees

davo: "I reckon the debate about refugees in detention is not really about the refugees"
True. Howard is going to have to change his tune shortly - just watch him squirm out of this one - it's going to be an interesting rest of the year

Di: "Half of us posters would have been found out and taken out the back and shot by now on this forum in certain countries. Viva la freedom of speech!"
Yes! this was actually said to me by one of the men I spoke to - he mentioned the peace rallies, and how there had been large "puppets" of Howard and Blaire and Bush - he said that in his country (Iran) people would have been jailed for 20 years if not shot for this kind of behaviour

I think we are losing sight of the original context of the posting - Giorgiou says, "the great majority of asylum seekers who came by boat were found to be genuine refugees... People on temporary protection visas have been welcomed and integrated by Australian communities, and are making significant contributions. Many holders of temporary protection visas continue to live in anxiety and fear of being returned to places of great insecurity"

As I said earlier – mistakes are being made, and the system that is in place simply need to be overhauled. I am not saying that I think we should just be letting anyone in without any form of security check, but we need to have a system that does not allow people to be locked up indefinitely – it is psychologically destructive and cruel, especially to young children – one of the kids I met was not even old enough to be in school, and the others weren’t much older.

Mandi, I appreciate your attempt to bring this thread back to the issues and facts canvassed in the original article. I hope it succeeds. Too many here have been making wholly exaggerated statements ("rampant and uncontrolled flooding", no less) without an iota of evidence or rationale relevant to Australia's history, demography or geography. We can thank Petro Georgiou's own party and leader for fomenting the climate of fear and meanness in which such exaggerated claims are tolerated, even welcomed.

And you seem to be the only one here in this forum, who has taken the trouble to meet some of the men, women and children in detention, whom so many others are willing to villify without knowing.

Mandi and Fiona,
Totally agree with your posts.

It’s good to see openly compassionate people deliberating on this topic. It seems that positions of privilege always breed privileged and blind points of views, no matter how rationale and humanitarian they want others to believe they are. Locking children and legitimate refugees in detention is simply disgusting and inhumane. But so much of the discussion so far has attempted to side step this as a fundamental moral failing.
I’ve never been to a detention centre but know that its not a new approach in policy and practice in this country. See government establishment of Aboriginal reserves, mission, etcetera. http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/lbry/fmly_hstry/fmly_hstry_smr.htm

The history and experience of detention, separation and removal, inhumane treatment and demonisation are well known to Indigenous peoples. But it seems this history has no place in the knowledge required of many others discussing these same issues here.

For instance, what about the internment of Japanese Australian citizens and the internment of refugees from Nazi Germany who had arrived in Australia in the second half of the 1930s. Its seems that geography and history and demography are all seen as tools for Lefty conspiracies by the alarmists? yeah right!

And how dare we mention recent deportations of Australian citizens

A recent letter to the Guardian put this very well. Imagine that you have two countries. Eutopia has a stable population, good social cohesion and environmental standards, a democratically elected responsible government, and decent health, education and living standards. Dystopia has a population that is doubling every 25 years and devouring whatever is left of the environment. The people are ruled by a kleptocratic elite and by clerics of a pronatalist religion that preaches intolerance and misogyny. Decent health care and education are only for the rich, and social welfare is along the lines of "devil take the hindmost". Of course many people in Dystopia want to go to Eutopia, but if too many succeed they will turn Eutopia into the same sort of hellhole they left behind, without making Dystopia any less a hellhole. What about the responsibility of the Eutopians to their own children and to their bit of the environment?

Dear Divergence,

Given the current changes in IR legislation and the gross underfunding of public schools, transport and hospitals (not to mention water) in this country, it seems the Eutopians are doing a great job of turning themselves into Dystopia without any help from asylum seekers, illegal immigrants or any other of our favourite bogeymen ( and women).

Congratulations to Petrou Georgio, you give me hope.

I remain open mouthed that there are people who actually think they can justify locking children up behind razor wire as a deterrent. Again, attitudes like those only help to get us closer to Dystopia.

In a nutshell Enaj!

Divergence faces the reality and many will draw upon the emotional distress of children to encourage boat loads of illegals to come to our shores once again.Undoubtedly the detention centres and those assessing refugee status need to smarten up their acts.

As a child I was horrified to watch my father lop the heads off chickens and watch them flap around until lifeless.However they still tasted good when cooked.People are horrified at the killing of kittens or kangaroos yet turn a blind eye to animals suffering an agonising death due to starvation and thirst because of drought.We are very selective about our compassion,depending opon our agendas.

Millions are suffering in Zimbwabe under Mugabe,they are refugees as well.Why can't we help them too?Are those who come here with no ID bypassing many countries on the way more deserving because their children stir the emotions?

If you free them, the boats will return.How much do you treasure this countries' self determination.How much tax are you willing to pay to accommodate tens of thousands?

How many wrongs can our little country afford put right, before we too, become refugees in our own country?

Arjay - I find your reference to your father killing chickens, and the killing of kittens and kangaroos extremely distasteful and completely irrelevant.

The reference to the starving millions in Zimbabwe also is completely irrelevant - many of us do reach out and attempt to help the suffering around the globe in our own ways - however we can. Just because of your own feelings of personal guilt for not helping, you cannot use this as reason for not helping those who reach out to our nation.

As for "How many wrongs can our little country afford put right" - this comment is simply selfish, and an exceptionally blinkered view – this is but one planet – how do you expect us to move forward without some form of helping our fellow man?

Have a thought for others before yourself for a change.

motema's point about (absconded) asylum seekers living already in the community by whatever means, proves the point that the Government is simply holding the detained asylum seekers as pawns in some political game, otherwise why don’t they round up all these other people, instead of handing out bridging visas?

“There is no reason at all why asylum seekers who arrive by boat can't (after health and security checks) be released to live in the community along-side those who come by plane.” How true these words are.

“I remain open mouthed that there are people who actually think they can justify locking children up behind razor wire as a deterrent” (enaj) – and they do – this is just the point. As I said, the Government is using these people to prove some illogical and non-existent point that has no bearing on the protection of Australia’s borders.

Ranier – the comparison to the removal and dehumanisation of Aboriginal peoples is very moving and insightful – you are spot on to make this link – have we really not learned from our mistakes?

I am disgusted by our behaviour; we must do something to rectify the situation immediately. Human-beings – *children* should never be used in this way.

Agree mandi,their parents should not use children as emotional blackmail to gain their freedom nor should these children be used as media fodder by interest groups to change laws that people have voted for.Not very democratic that.

Mandi, Well said and his/her weak pithy ittle come back suggests he/she is thinking more deeply about the issues. We can only hope.

Arjay --> “their parents should not use children as emotional blackmail to gain their freedom nor should these children be used as media fodder by interest groups to change laws that people have voted for”

People who have been lied to and deceived by a Government who goes directly against Amnesty International's condemnation of mandatory detention - from their website --> "Over 70 children remain in immigration detention on Australian territory and the Pacific island of Nauru, despite the expiry of a 10 June deadline to release all children and their families from detention in Australia, as set by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and presented to the Government." here --> http://www.amnesty.org.au/whats_happening/refugees/issues_and_campaigns/children_in_detention?MySourceSession=dc23e31c884ca8cf99f91ff2661a72fd and this: "Australia is the only western country with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers, including children, who arrive without valid documentation"

We are also in breach of UNICEF's Convention on the Rights of the Child from 1990 here --> http://www.unicef.org/crc/fulltext.htm

Rainier - I am afraid if you read Arjay’s post again, you will find that she/he has no intention of changing her/his opinion - some people become obsessed with an idea, and find it difficult to see clearly from underneath the quagmire - feel pity for her/him

Arjay, would you prefer that adult refugees leave their children or dump them somewhere (anywhere so long as it's not here), while they roam the world seeking refuge for their family? At least then you couldn't accuse them of using their children for emotional blackmail. Even better, you could then accuse them of abandoning their children. So WE don't have to see the mournful eyes of the refugee kids, AND we get to disapprove of their selfish parents. Two birds with one stone. How perfect!

Fiona, Mandi, et al.:
How do you feel about the jailing of parents in Australian prisons? A woman may be a con artist who preys on the elderly and a real menace to the community, but she may still be a loving mother and her children may suffer from separation from her. In this case you have no problem accepting that the protection of the community takes precedence over the rights of the child.

Admittedly a few asylum seekers are not much of a problem, even if their credentials are dubious, but in Europe and America enormous numbers are showing up, with only a small fraction accepted as genuine. Britain got more than 100,000, counting dependants, in 2002 alone, at a cost of about 2 billion pounds for just that one year. This is money that couldn't be spent on the schools, the hospitals, aged care,etc. There was recently an article in the Guardian on how 25,000 cancer patients had died in Britain who could have been saved if they had had prompt access to the best treatment. There aren't unlimited resources. You people seem to be happy to walk over your own people to help foreigners. Most of us don't agree with you or with the position that the world's poor are coming here anyway so that we might as well lie back and enjoy it.

Divergence:

1. Refugees are not criminals. Your analogy is not valid.

2. Let me know when Australia acquires the history and geography of "Europe and America", and we might have some valid comparisons to consider. There is NO evidence that Australia was overrun with refugees prior to mandatory detention, and not for lack of tyranny around the world, or for lack of leaky boats.

3. Your suggestion that I would "walk over [my] own people to help foreigners" is ignorant and offensive. You have no idea.

4. You have no basis for claiming that you represent "most of us". And the last federal election result isn't the least bit informative on this point; the major parties were all singing pretty much the same song.

5. Could you possibly be implying that "the world's poor" are our enemies, to whom we (some of us) capitulate? That is so sad.

Fiona, Its obvious Divergence doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to answer your rebuttals so I’ll step in and give an honest account for him

1. You’re right, I do think they are criminals because and I have a valid excuse. And the excuse it this. I have never met one and like all people who suffer from Alien paranoia I can and do imagine them anyway I think fits my xenophobia.

2. Right again. I implicitly know that there is no evidence of refugees flooding into Australia - but while I can make comparisons with other countries such as Europe I appear to have some credibility. By doing this I can rant like I'm well informed and accurate with my assertions. Never let the truth get in the way of a great lie.

3. When all else fails reach for emotive accusations that question family loyalty and national patriotism; It worked for Pauline and John when they couldn’t justify their racist policies. They resorted to scare tactics and wedging. Calling someone unAustralian always works and deflects the whole argument away from the facts.

4. Like John Howard I can claim to represent all Australian’s even though Howard only got just over 50 % of the vote. Yes Labor was singing the same song as us. In fact they were our choir girls right throughout the last election. They love being in opposition - we love being in power as it keeps our Labor friends in opposition. It’s a wonderful symbiotic relationship that has the endorsement of big business & its often called Australian democracy.

5. Anyone that is poor and who does not vote 1 for the Liberal Party in the next election is our enemy – especially anyone who is a refugee supporter. To be totally honest it hurts my head to even think about the welfare of my next door neighbor let alone starving Africans.

Finally, just remember that UFO’s do exist, I’ve seen them and they took me into their space ship and probed my privates with electronic devices. I’ve never been the same since.

Fiona and Rainier,

1. You believe in open borders so want to wrap any irregular arrival in the mantle of a refugee. This is intellectually dishonest. A refugee is not a criminal, but an asylum seeker who falsely pretends to be a refugee or a plain old illegal immigrant is guilty of fraud: by my dictionary "any deliberate misrepresentation of the truth or a fact used to take money, rights or other privileges or property away from a person or persons. Any intent to deceive is proof of fraud." A fraudulent asylum seeker may easily cost a country far more money than someone who pretends to be collecting for a charity.

2. It is dishonest to compare the asylum seeker situation now with the situation during the Cold War. People smuggler networks are international in scope and even charter ships to take their charges across the Pacific to the US. You are effectively saying that Australia is some sort of Magic Kingdom where everything always comes out right, completely different from almost all other developed country. This is an extraordinary claim and demands extraordinary proof.

3. It is a bit rich for a person who has had a post banned for flaming to claim to be offended. I am merely doing the courtesy of assuming that you are intelligent enough to understand the consequences of what you open borders people are asking for. Enormous disparities of wealth don't exist within countries, because people move to where the opportunities are. Environmental footprint is a rough proxy for living standards. From the Redefining Progress site Australia's is about 7 hectares, the US 9.5, Norway about 8, the European average around 5, and Japan is around 4. The world average is 2.3 hectares, below the footprint of Mexico, and the sustainable capacity per person around 1.7 hectares. Effectively, open borders means condemning millions of your fellow Australians to abject poverty

4 .The "Labour" party undoubtedly checked its policy with focus groups. By the way, I am a woman and not a Liberal voter.

Rainer, our economy is a tad more complex than your musings.We are an enormous land with a minute population.Considering all the socialists nonsense over the last 30yrs we have managed to keep the productive motivated and on the treadmill of responsibility even with all the leftest BS that feeds off human weakness rather than our determination and courage to achieve.

In short the reality is this,our economy is attractive to others because of its relative wealth, generous social security system and natural resources that we are flogging off to maintain our diminishing standard of living.

To have an open border policy which you are proposing is a recipe for anarchy and poverty.You cannot have wealth without discipline,ethics/morality ,or a singular unifying language that gives us social cohesion.The change to our society has been too rapid.We are now at the crossroads.It time to take stock and see what the majority of Australians want.Regardless of how you view the ideal Australia,we need to take the predominate culture into to account,since it is they who have provided this stability and security that many want, without the pain of evolution.Our relative affluence and freedoms did not happen by accident.My parents and their ancestors fought hard for this freedom and just opening our borders on a whim of a few bleeding hearts,shows disrepect for those who fought so hard for you to have the freedom to bite the hand that feeds you.

Rainer,you're just an immature trendy on a mission to secure your own agenda in the limelight of our media.There are many more suffering Australians who deserve our attention,however from your perepective,not contraversial enough to highten your profile.

Read a little wider in Australian history and you'll find that my ancestors fought and died for this country too, on this soil, fighting for their country. They also provided much of the free labor that built this nation. The cattle would have never survived without them. I'm not advocating a free and open border, I'm advocating a humanitarian and compassionate approach to how we treat refugees and asylum seekers. Despite the lack of civil and political rights and privilege that my people have in this country we understand what it means to be persecuted for religious and political beliefs and practices and we can and do empathize with others who want flee these conditions to simply become Australian, something my people have only enjoyed as rights of citizenship since 1967. So before you call me a trendy socialist bear these facts in mind. If you haven’t worked it out yet I'm Indigenous. But alas, I'm not expecting this to have any effect on your narrow minded and bigoted views.

See this link to see how my ancestors helped build this country:
http://www.antar.org.au/stolen_wages.html
See this link to see how my ancestors fought for this country:

http://www.abc.net.au/frontier/

Rainier, should'nt we resolve our social problems with the Indigenous population before add to these problems with other alienated minority groups?

Rainer, thanks for exposing yourself as to who you truly are. As a "mongrel" Australian, vintage import circa grannies (2nd generation only, and now living in a regional town, no lane or road named after me!) I do ponder during the daytime about who's posting what and where from. Postings and life experiences make me think on what indigenous Australians have thought about immigrants (circa 1776) Which lead me to think that no one has ever asked the viewpoint of an indigenous person about what their community thinks of more refugees whilst we run around with our rights to citizenship/passports in the air to justify why you should be born here./or escape. Thanks for the insight, and now I think I know what the wavy bits are about.

Di, I'm glad you like my FISH!><((((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><((((º>

Yes, it’s been interesting posting here without revealing. The prevailing subtext and assumption in narrative here is that we are all white, Anglo Saxon and so called ordinary Australians. We are not - and we don't share the same history or understanding of being Australian as others. This diversity should be seen as a strength rather than a weakness!

Before others jump on me with their blind folded perspectives let me say that I don't purport to have a higher moral standing because of my ethnicity but I do expect other Australians to have a higher moral and humanitarian principles & standards because of our joint history.

What angers me in this discussion is that the Cult of disremembering" or "The Great Australian Silence" continues to prevail here in this forum ---and that its logic and rationale is being applied to refugees and asylum seekers.

Locking kids in detention centres continues this disremembering.

Davo, From reading your other posts, I don't think your question is sincere so you'll have to do better than that mate.

You're all filthy do-gooders the lot of youse. Now shut up so that I can get some sleep.

Rainier: “we don't share the same history or understanding of being Australian as others. This diversity should be seen as a strength rather than a weakness!”

It certainly should be - as should the strength of our culture - Australia has always been proud of its multicultural diversity... for such a young country, we are very short-sighted.
but this again is getting away from the topic somewhat.

Rainier: “"The Great Australian Silence" continues to prevail here in this forum ---and that its logic and rationale is being applied to refugees and asylum seekers. ..Locking kids in detention centres continues this disremembering.”

Well said Rainier - there is no admittance on the government's part of wrong-doing, never-the-less an apology (sound familiar?) - the areas that they have moved the families to is no different from the main detention areas - in some respects from what I understand, it is more depressing being removed from their friends/family members, and also much more degrading. The women are allowed out into the community to go to the local supermarket, but they are escorted and only allowed to buy certain foods. The kids go to the local school, only to be teased by the other kids because they are in detention. They get locked inside their "houses" by a certain time at night. And they are still behind razor-wire fences like those that entomb the main detention centre.

But lets not forget the main reason for their removal from the main facility - the government can give it a different name. They move these people a few kilometres up the road to another facility almost identical and call it "housing" - this way they are no longer counted as part of the core "detainees" as they are no longer in Baxter. This is how the numbers get reduced.

This Government is treating us as if we are fools. Don't oblige them by becoming one. Meet with released detainees if you don't want to go to meet those still imprisoned. Make up your own mind – don’t let them tell you what to think.

Ummm...excuse me...proud of our multicultural diversity? This, is what the issue of refugees is all about. Did'nt I mention before how fake it was? Australian multiculturalism has been shoved down our throats...by big business and their lefty side-kicks.

Australians should speak their mind...and reject MULTICULTURALISM. It is not something I am proud of, seems like a reinvention of colonialism. We should resolve our issues with the Indigenous population first, before we get overconfident about our ability to absorb people from different cultures and ethnicities.

But you have revealed your true agenda, Mandi. You want to change the face of Australia. It is not about compassion for refugees, but pursuing your multicultural ambitions. Petro represents an opportunity for you to pursue this agenda.

But since diversity makes you so proud, I am a part of that diversity. And so is Pauline Hanson, Fred Nile. More to the point, anyone who doesn't share your beliefs is a part of this grand diversity you idealise!

Divergence:

Almost all of your arguments directed to me in your last post are predicated on your claim that I "believe in open borders", indeed that I'm one of those "open borders people". This might have been a reasonable platform for the case you then unfurled, except that I have said no such thing. Nor would I. The tendency of some here, like you, to assume and impute things to those you oppose, for the sake of contriving a straw argument - is lazy, discourteous and contributes nothing to discussion on an important issue. Next you redefine “refugee” as “an asylum seeker who falsely pretends to be a refugee….”. And you call me (and Rainier) the "intellectually dishonest" ones. How ironic!

But let’s put those little intellectual infractions aside for the moment… if it is dishonest to compare the asylum seeker situation now (as we stand here in year 4 of an apparently indefinite "war on terror") with the situation during the 25 year+ standoff between first- and second-world countries, make out your case. Don't just wave the Cold War around and pronounce it a trump card. What you raised amounts to no argument at all: shipping has crossed the Pacific to the US for hundreds of years, tyranny has produced outcasts and refugees for centuries and people were crossing the globe long before globalisation - so what is your point?

On your reasoning, New Zealand should have been completely overrun by now by teeming floodgates of refugees. NZ, the nation most proximate to us geographically, historically and in terms of political systems - doesn't lock people up in remote places indefinitely, doesn't design refugee management systems that cause social and psychological breakdown among children as Australia's does, doesn't take seven years to investigate refugee claims, and doesn't colonise tiny and poor Pacific nations with bribes to provide incarceration services. And NZ hasn’t been overrun. Refugees aren't storming the beaches. They're not there like a plague, comdemning millions of NZ folk to "abject poverty". Hot damn! It must be the Magic Kingdom! Who'da thunk?!

Davo, I don't think Mandi has some diabolical "true agenda" which has been ominously revealed by her postings. She is meeting with these people and seeing first hand the suffering that they are subject to - sorry where is the long bow re Fred Nile et al? They have freedom of speech? and are an import through circumstance? One of the saddest things revealed by her first hand experience is the kid's reactions to the detention children going outside the wire to schools, where they are taunted by other children - Australian children - who have no idea of what these other kids are going through. Makes you wonder about the dinner table conversation these little "Aussie battler kids" have with their parents. "Guess what! i called little Imran a dirty little asylum seeker today". I'd be washing his mouth out with something worse than KFC. But only if I could tear myself away from "Today Tonight" I just wish that we could get over this "us/them" mentality about how we treat "other" people, regardless of borders, (or for that matter, land rights) and start walking a mile or two in something other than bovver boots, without thinking the sky's gonna fall.

Arjay, your intellectual callibre is perfectly represented in the final para of your last post, in your invective directive directed to Rainier. It would indeed be a pity if any public opinion turned on such flimsy as the vain postings of an inadequate chap who prefers to attack the perso instead of facing up to the debate. What a good thing it is that people of good will can take comfort in taking a longer view.

BTW Arjay, there is no "limelight" on this website, you poor dear. There is postering by all of us, and vanity among those who choose to reveal bits (selectively) of themselves/ourselves..... RJ who? Whatever, who??

Fiona:
1. On June 8 Rainier quoted Greg Barns as saying "the distinction between asylum seeker and economic migrant is meaningless". I may have mixed up what came from Rainier and what came from Barns, but Rainier did not criticise this view, which could reasonably be described as for open borders. Although I (and others) repeatedly said that we did not want to exclude people fleeing persecution and I described the extended detention of a genuine refugee as tantamount to keeping an innocent person in prison, you described us as the sorts of monsters who would send Jews back to be killed by Hitler. You refused to entertain the possibility that an asylum seeker might not be genuine. It is true that you didn't explicitly say you wanted open borders.

2. Go back and read what I said. I said that refugees were NOT criminals. I distinguised them from illegal immigrants and those who knowingly make false asylum claims, who could reasonably be considered guilty of fraud.

3. I have checked the facts on asylum seeker numbers and refer you to the website of the Migration Policy Institute, which has published a graph showing asylum claims in 38 developed countries over the years, and to a 2004 paper by Timothy J. Hatton of the ANU "Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Policy in Europe" (available on the Web). In the early 1970s there were about 50,000 asylum claims a year in all industrialised countries. This rose to more than 850,000 in 1992. It has since come down to around 400,000 a year. The actual numbers including dependants would be larger. Hatton's paper deals with the reasons. Very large numbers of asylum claims by Third World people in the West is a recent phenomenon. Why go to New Zealand when you can get to the US for the same money?

Dear Fiona,unfortunately my flawed intellect is shared by many in Australia.Rainer and yourself have your own pet agenders that of freeing anyone who comes to this country illegally.I just observed that there are billions of potential refugees.Surely someone who is suffering hunger is also a refugee or do they have to have some political agenda and be educated in a certain way before they become palitable to our tastes?Surely escaping hunger has a higher priority than escaping an oppressor?

I merely observed that our small country does not have the capacity to cure the world's ills, since it has been the soft option mentality that has given rise to free medicine and better food technology without reciprocal responsibility in curbing population increases.The more we give the more the problem worsens.It is time poor countries took some responsibility.

People should come to this country on our terms.Yes,we can be more compassionate but they should not be released into the community until their status is resolved.

You just don't like cold hard logic that is good for the survival of our country.Good intentions and a warm heart will not put bread on your table or a roof over your head.The veneer of civilisation is very thin and it takes the an enormous effort of many good people to keep this social and economic prosperity.

I'm seeing the beginnings of social disintergretion in this country,and the Australian culture need to take stock of what is happening and where they want to go.Not where minority groups with their experimental social engineering think we should be.

Dystopia is banging on the door of your Utopia, Arjay. Can hear 'em battering down your door as I type this! They all want in! They'll be wanting to take advantage of our great unfair dismissal laws (if they get a job) and our fantastic Centrelink system. (if they don't) Nirvana on a kebab or bamboo stick! And then will have the audacity to force us to mulitculturalise and eat their food! In an ethnic restaurant coming to your suburb! And charge us for the priviledge! And run for council! Who know's just what they will do when they're running amok in the suburbs. I can feel a Leonard Cohen song coming on.

I applaud Petro Georgios Bill. I do hope that it passes. If it does, I (and I dare not speak for anyone else in this forum) will not feel embaressed when our Government criticizes other countries' abuse of human rights nor feel ashamed at being tarred with the brush of imhumanity. I believe that our Nation needs to retrieve its standing in the world as a human rights defender and not be constrained by having to defend the indefensible, ie, the indefinite detention (for whatever reason) of a human accused (let alone convicted) of no crime. I believe the Bill provdes a fair balance between the due and proper assessment of asylum seekers and legitimate border control. I also believe, that any new law, which lacks the guidance and will to implement same from the top down - may be doomed to fail. Mr Georgio may also need to address the manner in which DIMIA and the companies which operate detention centres, manage claims and applicants from start to finish. A DIMIA officer would not act the way he or she does, which includes deporting and incarcerting Australians, without being given, either by implication or direction, a free hand to so act. Humanity as well as inhumanity comes from the top down - I believe that this Bill and Mr Georgio's long awaited stance, will be the start of a positive step back to humanity for this country.

Di,don't hold back.Just call me a filthy racist scum.That is the intent of your innuendo.It is not as simple as "come one come all."

All humans are selective about who they invite into their houses,and it isn't all about race.We have friends who are Indian,Brazilian,Lebanese,Italian ,Greek ,Chinese etc.We are all prejudiced in some respect since we tend to mix with those of similar socio-economic backgrounds.Is this socio/moneyism?Can we formulate a new law to eradicate this divisive practice?

I'm talking about the rate of change that is causing unrest.That needs to be addressed.In Sydney for example we are seeing too much ethnic based violence from some people who came here to escape war,yet are bringing their problems with them.The street violence in Sydney is out of control.Serious assault is a daily occurence and the media don't even bother reporting it

I can hear it now Di:

"First we take Marrickville
Then we take Bellevue Hill..."

I hate to be a party pooper, but could we lay off the personal stuff and start arguing about the bill again? Can we agree that not everyone on Petro's side is all for open borders, and that not everyone who opposes Petro's bill is racist?

Here's the latest news [ http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15616774-2,00.html ] Victorian Liberal Sophie Panopoulos called Petro and Co "political terrorists", which has gotten a few people up in arms. Meanwhile [ http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1391635.htm ], the rebel Libs are dissatisfied with how talks with the PM are going and will push ahead with the planned private member's bill.

Di, u wish we could escape 'us/them' ? myyyyyy goodness. The sun has got to you dear, or is it post traumatic stress from the attempted Koori stoning ? As long as there is language and race there will be 'us/them'. sorry but true, and the 'them' will always be trying to sway things in 'their' favor, as much as 'we' will be trying to retain it as we made it. Human beings are political creatures as well as social, I truly don't think you 'get' this, nor do I think you ever go further in your thinking to 'where' 'they' wish to take the legal and social environment.

I could relate to you numerous incidents of cultural bad manners perpetrated by various 'them' where if I had done the same thing in their country there would have been an unruly mob in no time. Imagine playing loud, overwhelming Alice Cooper in a little malay village in Kelantan,a state of Malaysia which is quite the fundamentalist haven these days with a strong flavor of Sharia Law)

I observe that pretty much any race coming to a 'less ethnically and socially homogenous' place like Australia, simply act as if they were the only or predominant group in the place and regard or treat most others as if they were the irrelevant minority back in their own former homeland. The laws of statistics must be said to apply here, in that its not ALL such people, but it sure appears to be.

Now look at me, there I go with my xenophobia, I actually like to have 'english' as the linguistic flavor in this country, in public life and leasure places how arrogant of me. Funny though, I now speak 3 other languages because I also believe that THEY have the right to hear THEIR language spoken by me when I'm a guest in their country.

Petro Geogiou and his supporters base the release of illegal immigrants of unknown origin on emotional arguments,without consideration of logical consequences.

It is simple,just prove the logic behind official policy and my arguments wrong.I have not seen one iota of fact or logic to the contrary,just appeals about compassion with no consideration for the actual consequences.

Petro and his supporters are railing against the wishes of what we the electorate voted for in the last election.Is this the mode of of democracy that Mr Mugabe enjoys in Zimbabwe?

Thanks Arjay :-) One more time, just to get all the facts on the table, could you (or any other person who disagrees with Petro's bill) outline the reasons you support the government's current policy?

I have not read a single post here that makes out a persuasive case for detaining people (anyone, for that matter) indefinitely. I do think a proper checking process is necessary. I don't think it should take the years it takes DIMIA under the Howard government's policy and toxic war against compassion.

Nor have I heard anything convincing that justifies breaking up families in detention, separating children from one or both of their parents, keeping children behind razor wire or having male guards watching women showering and toileting.

Come to think of it, no-one here has explained why children and their immediate families should not be released from detention immediately pending determination of their applications unless a judicial officer finds that they pose a danger to the public or are likely to abscond.

Or why people who have been found to be bona fide refugees but have been granted only temporary protection visas should not be permitted to remain in Australia permanently.

Or why detention decisions made by DIMIA officers should not be subject to judicial scrutiny. Other decisions by public servants are externally reviewable, so why not these decisions too?

(Anyone who just wants to criticise me for what you think I stand for, rather than answering the actual issues here, please refrain. The "personal" is not political. It's just tiresome).

Fiona:
There probably are ways to deal with the illegal immigration problem without mandatory detention. The restrictionist organisations in the US and Migration Watch UK are not asking for it. Their plans probably are more humane so far as the genuine refugees are concerned, and I would not worry if, say, the Migration Watch proposals were implemented instead. However, the Georgiou bills have significant border protection weaknesses.

They do nothing to shorten the appeal process. There needs to be a final decision in a matter of weeks, so that illegal immigrants cannot establish themselves in the community while they pile delay on delay at enormous cost. What is wrong with having a panel to decide these cases? Asylum seekers would be entitled to representation, and hearings would be open to the public. People who conceal their identity or do other fraudulent things would go to jail, not detention centers.

They do nothing to discourage illegal immigrants in the community. I would suggest a million dollar fine with 10% going to the informer for people who hire illegal immigrants. Employers would be able to check people's citizenship or right to work with the Immigration Dept.

garra's short pathetic epitaph to the loss of peace and good will in our cities due to ethnic based crime and violence in our cities ,is a denial of the realities that face many western world nations who haven't been selective about the quality of immigrant regardless of enthnocentricity and are now paying the price of social and economic disintergration.

Human genetics is a very imprecise science,and we have to choose not only people with abilities,but also with attitudes of openess and tolerance.All is not well in the land of Aus.

As I've argued previously, the best way to halt illegal immigration is to deal with the source of the problem. Ultimately this would mean eliminating poverty and oppression in the countries they are fleeing, but more practically by putting pressure on Indonesia other involved countries. Indefinite mandatory detention _just_does_not_work_ as a deterrent. If it did, we would have ceased getting illegal immigrants after it was introduced in 1994. The fact that people suddenly stopped trying to get into Australia after 2001 shows, in my opinion, that the government implemented something new to stop illegal immigration. Whether halting illegal immigration is a good thing or a bad thing is another argument, but if what you say you want to do is halt illegal immigration, then clearly indefinite mandatory detention is a waste of time and money because it just doesn't work.

So I've made my point regarding it being an ineffective deterrent. The other issue is that it just isn't fair to lock people up indefinitely. Ideally their claims should be processed in a quick and timely manner, but often this isn't possible. I see no problem whatsoever, and no one has put forward a problem, with people who have been assessed as not being dangerous or likely to abscond being let out into the community. There is no benefit whatsoever in having normal people locked up when they could be just as easily out in the community. It expensive, undignified, incompassionate, inhumane and hazardous to their health. Doctors have repeatedly said that excessive periods of detention has lead to a deterioration of the detainees mental health. Provided there is not a new continuous flow of illegal immigrants (and I suspect their won't be, as the government has done a good job of preventing illegal immigration since 2001), I see no problem with releasing them out into the community if their claims can't be processed in a timely manner.

I challenge anyone to out argue me on this issue, because I feel no one has adequately addressed my arguments so far.

Albert,the problem as you have identified is the length of dentention.The policy is not the problem,it is our legal system that allows multiple appeals funded by the tax payer,that many lawyers activily premote to line their pockets.

Arjay wrote:

"Human genetics is a very imprecise science,and we have to choose not only people with abilities,but also with attitudes of openess and tolerance"

And there I was thinking he had no sense of humour. Hang on... he's probably being serious. Fascist eugenics combined with "openess (sic) and tolerance".

Yikes.

Yes Albert, do agree. Arjay, I wasn't implying yu were racist scum, I don't think you are, otherwise I would have probably said so. You are getting a bit sensitive. Boaz David, stop being so nasty. I agree with respecting cultures wherever one is and Australians have certainly got a reputation in certain countries overseas, but it's hardly addressing the issue. And Garra, your tribute to "The Man" was very amusing, not pathetic. Re Abloke, cannot believe that someone would stoop so low and take your view so personally. That's horrible, but do you know that it was an online person, doens't say much for the wonderful anonomoty I thought we all shared.

Yes garra,in every family we have a great diversity of ability.Two intelligent parents don't necessarily produce intelligent protegy.Natures' way is through diversity,so that if the environment changes we have people of varying abilities to cope with the new environment.

It is to our advantage to encourage more intelligent people to this country since on average their prodgeny will have greater ability.They must however have the right attitudes i.e. be tolerant and understanding of the dominant culture in this country.

Shouldn't the human race be progressing genetically?If the body be the vehicle for the soul,in the event of reincarnation wouldn't you want to progress to a better body?

PS,Di and Fiona I bear you no malice .There is nothing wrong with good healthy debate.When I see the stupidity that is crucifiying small business,I get a bit heated at times.

Gee Arjay, thanks for calling me stupid and bearing no malice. It's probably the nicest thing you'll ever say to us. I get a bit heated too, however am trying hard to remember that you only live inside my monitor.

Di,sorry that I made you feel stupid ,that wasn't my intention.Please accept my apologies.

"Two intelligent parents don't necessarily produce intelligent protegy"

Well at least he's honest.

Not sure why y'all have to get so personal... Kinda ruins a good debate, and stops others from reading on.

It will be interesting to see the results of all this talk - and how the proposed Bill is handled in parliament.

Any decision about these people is a good one - it just has to change somehow - one way or the other.

It is a good start getting children out from behind the wire - let's see what happens. It is just a tiny baby-step in the right direction. We cannot become complacent with these peoples' lives.

John Marsden wrote

"We cannot be Australian unless we make other people un-Australian"

From Griffith REVIEW Edition 8 – People Like Us

Rainer,your John Marsden is a conradiction of terms."to make Australians ,unaustralian," does not necessarily mean an evolution of our society upon which we all agree upon.

We need an evolution of the collective consciousness,not revolution of impulsive minority groups such as yours ,that doesn't appreciate this moment in time upon which you can indulge yourself because of all the sacrifices of our forebears.

Rainer we either build upon our strengths through evolution or suffer the chaos of anarchy.

Arjay, whatever.

And evolutionary development emanates from diversity not sameness, and from the courageous not the cowards......

"We cannot be < insert name > unless we make other people
un< insert name >"

Hmmm…where have I seen this before?

This is where you heard it before:

They continue to believe that mandatory detention is fundamental to border protection and they continue to believe that this protection implies a threat.

They want us to believe that a handful of women and children are a threat to national security - but you won’t hear a peep from them about the 60,000 backpackers from Europe who stay on for years.

They got dog whistled to obey an irrational and unsubstantiated fear. They don’t really hate refugees, they hate being susceptible to dog whistling - but then going about blaming refugees

Backing up a minute here guys, Arjay, very nice apology accepted, but however, can you tell me what impulsive minority group it is that Rainer represents? I think you have the "to make us Australian, we have to make them Un Australian" thingy out of context. Australians have made the "them and us" happening into an art form, if not through blatancy when allowed through legislation and attitude, via innuendo and lifestyle. God, I'm gonna get beaten up over this post. Bring it on!

We Australians, Howard’s “warm and generous people” have earned for ourselves one of the most dubious human rights reputations within the developed world; he has long been aware of the fact but now he’s aware that opposition to it is shared by more than the so called “impulsive minority”.

Things have changed for us and them this week but the same arguments from the same hand me down recipe of xeno-racism infused within the mix of a good old law and order campaign remain