In response to Leigh's reasonable question, the time restrictions (due to events occuring prior to 1951) and also geographic restrictions in the orginal 1951 Convention were superceded by what is known as the 1967 Protocol, which basically made the principles globally applicable.

(As the article is the first in a series, I imagine this and other more recent historical developments might come in a later piece)

Interestingly, in light of current events, Australia did not ratify that 1967 Protocol until 1973 in large part due to a desire to be able to return asylum seekers fleeing Indonesian oppression in West Papua - although at that time PNG (where almost all of them fled to) was an Australian territory whose residents had no automatic right to enter mainland Australia.

In response to The Big Fish - whether it is 20%, 1% or 50%, those who are found not to be refugees and have no other right to remain in Australia are removed (except for a small group whose country of origin won't take them back, which leads on to discussions about Statelessness, which is a different but equally difficult issue). Many of those who have been held for the longest periods end up being assessed as having a valid claim (such as the Afghan man released from Villawood last week after well over 6 years detention).

In response to Sage, it is simply not the case that any (credible) person suggests "all on board a leaky boat must be refugees". Our system or law certainly does not take this approach, but rather assesses each person/family case individually, as it should. Your statement about Saddam is simply wrong - people suspected of even general association with war crimes can and have been excluded on this ground alone, even when they have been found to have a genuine fear of persecution.

I do agree with Sage's final statement though - "it can only work when there are rules". That's what the Refugee Convention is - a set of rules, less than perfect but at least agreed to by a majority of the world's countries. Trying to get everyone to operate by the same rules meets our sovereign self-interest and provides the best chance of more people getting a humane outcome globally. That's why some people get upset when the Australian government flagrantly breaks those rules.

As for BOAZ_David's statement that "the 'incentive' for population control measures "may well have to be a widespread dying off of the unsustainable population" - thanks for making your views clear.

I've always found if I listen to zero migration people long enough, this is the type of statement many of them come out with.

Just to be fair, how about we implement this 'widespread dying off' by random allocation - every person has a 50% chance of being executed. Sound fair to you? If you're happy to just turn your back on the world's poor until they 'die back' to an (undefined) sustainable number, then I'm sure you wouldn't complain if the people of those nations decided the burden of drastically reducing global population should be shared with the rich world. We have fewer people, but per person we do consume a lot more of the resources. Might seem "a little harsh and cold hearted" as you say, but you know, if we don't address the "root cause" of the problem .....

Andrew Bartlett,

Thankyou for the answer, Andrew.

SMH 4/2/06 (Sydney)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fbi-brought-into-search-for-rahma/2006/02/04/1138958945047.html

[Throughout the ordeal, Rahma's mother, Alyaa, 29, has been pregnant with their ninth child. Her father, Hosayn, 35, has been prescribed sedatives and drugs for stomach ulcers.]

How many chilren was that ? In demographics, what will this lead to in 3 generations ?

Mr Hosayns family of 9 Children who have 9 children (Total=81) who have 9 children=729 persons.

Traditional Aussie 1.8children who have 1.8 chidren who have 1.8 children=5.8 persons...total.

Andrew,
I note with interest your selective focus on ONE of the 4 possiblities I stated when populations in a country become unsustainable. You also chose to focus on the one I described as ‘repugnant’, and you suggest that characterizes my whole position. (did you read that?).

My 4th point was to change cultural/reproductive practices ! (did you read that also ?) (e.g. CHINA-1 child policy)
I am seeing a recurring theme in your writings though. You see all human relations and situations in ‘global’ terms, rather than ethnic or national. I suppose you are in some kind of denial about how human societies in the real world actually function.

The world consists of families, tribes, races, all of which are competitors for resources.

You refer to the large amount of resources consumed by small numbers of wealthy westerners. Do you say this to support the view that those of us who ‘have’ those resources, including LAND (?) should be sharing it with those huge families like the one above and in Ethiopia with their unsustainable reproductive practices? if so, to what extent ? Self destruction ?

Presumably this view you are promoting takes into account the many MILLIONS of people in India who will soon breed themselves out of a livelihood due to lack of land etc ? and that you are quite happy for those ‘millions’ with their continued unsustainable reproductive attitudes to come to Australia and thereby completely alienate our culture and ethnic mix, to the point where we cease to exist by virtue of our 1.8 reproductive practices ?

Wake up Australia... have more chidren and strictly controlled immigration !.....or.....

“I've always found if I listen to zero migration people long enough, this is the type of statement many of them come out with.”

Crikey Andrew I wish you wouldn’t stoop so low as to tar everyone who is in favour zero net migration with the same brush.

What you effectively appear to be saying is that everyone who desires net zero migration is a twat and therefore everyone who has population stabilisation and sustainability at heart is a moron. Am I overextrapolating? I can’t see how I could be. I mean, obviously those in favour of net zero migration are in favour of sustainability, by and large.

What a bizarre thing for you to attribute this statement; “the incentive for population control measures may well have to be a widespread dying off of the unsustainable population”, or anything like it to the whole net zero migration mindset! And to think that I and everyone I know thought that the Democrats were basically pretty sound on sustainability issues. Wow!

The vast majority of those who want zero, net zero, or low immigration want it because they want Australia to reach a sustainable population, and thus do our bit in the fight for global sustainable population. If we stabilise ours, we can much more legitimately work towards stabilisation in other countries. If we don’t we are being duplicitous. We (population stabilisation advocates) are afraid that if we don’t stabilise population, and quickly, there will be a massive die-off. So this is just the opposite to what you attribute to net zero migration advocates.

“Just to be fair, how about we implement this 'widespread dying off' by random allocation - every person has a 50% chance of being executed”

Why are you even bothering entertaining this sort of ridiculous ‘debate’?

In the interests of perspective, I think your two posts are otherwise good. But the bad bits are really shameful.

BOAZ_david; very good posts, except that you ruin the whole theme with your last line; “Wake up Australia... have more children and strictly controlled immigration !”

What is your thinking?

Are you in favour of population stabilisation and sustainability?

Are you afraid of current Australians or white Australians being bred out or overwhelmed by faster birthrates among non-white or immigrants?

And in keeping with this thread, how is having more babies supposed to help Australia’s assistance with refugee issues?