My understanding is that asylum seekers in Naru and housed and fed well, are allowed to mix in the community and their children can attend school. Hardly sounds like "warehousing" to me. Surely the "deleterious physical and psychological effects" of staying on a tropical island are much milder than the horrendous situation I imagine the refugees escaped from.

Australia has a right to protect her borders from illegal immigration and the Australian public demand our government enforce this right. It seems to me that offshore refugee processing is more of a set back for lawyers and other refugee industry vampires than it is for human rights.

Another turbulent priest presuming to lecture a Prime Minister whose action on refugees and border protection is the envy of lesser politicians, worldwide, who have not had the bottle nor the political will to play by their own countries’ rules and listen to the wishes of a majority in their electorates. Rather than “isolating” us from the international community – whatever that is – Howard has put us on the map as a fair-minded and generous country, but one that will not be bullied by the United Nations a la the UK and Europe, where they are being swamped by illegal immigrants, thanks to their own, lax, gutless attitudes.

As Fr. Holdcroft says, sections of the Government think the refugee system has broken down. It has (evidenced by illegal entry) and it is costly to targeted countries; more so in Australia than Europe, because we still have control, whereas illegal immigrants mostly disappear into landscape in countries without our control, and illegals stay on without detection.

This clerical gentleman thinks that the “proposals put forward” will not help the international situation. OK, but why should Australia provide the solutions if we are such a pariah in the “international community”? We have a formal programme for refugee intake which allows in UN processed numbers, already excessive in terms of our environmental situation, according to some experts. We have gone above and beyond in accommodating people turning up in boats until the penny finally dropped that we were being taken advantage of. Enough is enough.

Fr. Holdcroft refers to, BUT DOES NOT DISPUTE, Senator Vanstone’s assertion that: “asylum seekers cannot be allowed to dictate where and by whom their claims will be heard.” As Holdcroft merely offers his own alternative, we can take it that nothing illegal – even under international “law”- is being proposed by our Government, and the offshore processing can go ahead, with ‘genuine” (how can we possibly know who is genuine) refugees not necessarily being settled in Australia.

Good!

Bozzie, "your understanding" of the situation on Nauru seems not to be based on experience in the field. Of the Nauru caseload that have finally found their way to Sydney all are experiencing extreme forms of mental illness, most to the point of psychosis. That is what four years on Nauru does to you - people do not return from that experience the same. And for what purpose? Australia will have to take responsibility for those people eventually (as other states will rightfully see it as our problem to solve) and the human beings concerned will have been - senselessly - irreparably damaged. That's no solution by anyone's standards.

Georgie....what a load of absolute CRAP... ! excuse my french...

I lived for TWO TERMS of 4 yrs on a tropical Island, with a quite uncertain future, very limited resources, knowing that at any time, my visa could be cancelled and I would be in Limbo, it did not cause me to be any of those things you mentioned about the assylum seekers on Nauru.. and I would suggest that if they are strong enough mentally to face the perils of a nighmarish sea and land voyage.. then I highly DOUBT THAT they would be traumatized by 3 meals a day, a roof over their heads, access to medical treatment (free) and security.

This 'myth' of psychosis and various other manufactured illnesses which the refugee industry trots out regularly totally defies description as to its dishonesty or its delusionment..

I am of the opinion that these people have simply learned or manufactured such symptoms for specific purposes of 'getting a desired outcome' and they are fed by the bleeding heart brigade who they KNOW will jump onto any such snippit of 'problems' and publicize it and seek to USE it for again..the desired outcome.

There are only a number of possible outcomes for those at Nauru

1/ They are assessed as NOT genuine. (Returned to home country)
2/ They are assessed as 'genuine' (accepted in either Australia or other country.

end of story.

Longggggg periods of detention occurr when they DISPUTE the finding of the authorities.

David Holdcroft’s concern for the welfare of refugees / asylum seekers is admirable. But he hasn’t got a balanced perspective.

Australia should have and does have very tight border controls. We just need to take one look at the issues with asylum seekers, or illegal aliens, in the US and other countries that have porous borders.

We should be and are listening to Indonesia’s concerns regarding West Papuan asylum seekers and we should be and are striving to engage Indonesia in assistance dealing with asylum seekers that use Indonesia as a stepping stone to their country of choice.

We should be and are discouraging West Papuans from seeking refuge in Australia, while at the same time putting in a very strong diplomatic effort with Indonesia to sort out human rights issues there.

We should and do detain asylum seekers. We just need to look at what happens when asylum seekers who are allowed into the community, such as in the UK and early on in Australia. They had a tendency to abscond.

We should be and are observing the 1951 Refugee Convention. We should also be, but apparently aren’t, working with the UN to update it.

We should be and are putting in a significant effort through our offshore refugee programs, which we have been doing in many places around the world for many decades, at the first or second highest level of any nation, on a per-capita basis.

We should and do have a significant refugee intake as part of our immigration program, although I think it should be higher, while the other two categories should be much lower.

We should be and are NOT contributing the UN minimum recommended 0.7% of GDP to international aid programs, nor anywhere near it.

We could do better, but all-considered Australia is doing very well with asylum-seeker / refugee issues.

Its time to treat these "boat people" as any other invader.
The rules of engagement should be changed.
Any boat that enters our 200 mile zone & does not turn away [from Australia] after one warning shot, should be sunk

This debate has been going for 5 years and still the savages have not moved one step forward in their nonsense.

Shoot them out of the water and drown them? Really? Babies and children too do you think? How about the Iraqi and Afghan people shoot all our invaders in their nations and call it border protection? No? Really? And why not? We went with bombs, guns and bullets to destroy the very same people the Afghans and Iraqis had escaped from.

Not one other nation on earth automatically locks up people just because they come on boats so why do we? What's that? They are the first people in history to come to Australia on boats? Really? I guess my families all swam here, as did all of yours.

Actually David got one thing quite wrong. Refugees do have the absolute right to choose where they go - to the first country that has SIGNED THE REFUGEE CONVENTION AND HAS LAWS TO PROTECT REFUGEES.

Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and others have not and we have.

I see it is the turn of the omniscient Father Holdcroft of the Jesuit Refugee Service who must now berate and hector us about refugees and asylum shoppers. I wonder if the Jesuits have a 'homeless Australian youth' service. What about a Jesuit respite service for the carers who are saving the Australian taxpayers an absolute squillion? Those carers have their own 'refugees' and 'asylum seekers' to whom they provide sanctuary and care. Why doesn't the church move in and help out.

Our own high court has ruled it legal to detain refugees and asylum shoppers and found that our elected government in so doing offends no laws. Here is a chance to replace the 'razor wire' and 'hot desert concentration style' detention centre with an idyllic tropical island where walks with wildlife would palliate a previous life of oppression and deprivation. No need for psychiatrists and no need for crayons for children to draw a 'treeless' barren Woomera landscape. But it's still not good enough. What are we to do; order the top 20 floors of the Sheraton on the Park to be vacated and ensconce asylum shoppers and refugees there.

Father Holdcroft says all stages of the processing of claims should be subject to scrutiny. Mr and Mrs Carty would welcome that. It was a group of refugees that butchered their son. Does the refugee industry accept any responsibility for that? Should we admit potential killers just to please the Jesuits?

And the reason we are not under the threat of "mass influx" is because of our beefed up illegal entry legislation. In the UK where a catch-and-release policy is applied, 20 000 failed asylum shopper remain at large.

Father Holdcroft should study his religion's Byzantinesque tenets to help him understand tough rules and regulations. Priests to remain celibate and other harsh rules are applied by the Roman Catholic church and those rules have to be obeyed. Some rules put in place by our federal government are tough but should be obeyed.

Lol Marilyn. 'No other nation' Actually, I bet there are few who would, but the refugee's know that so they don't bother trying and mores the case, they countries aren't ones they want to live in anyways.

Cut the pointless rhetoric and people might listen to you more.

BOAZ,
If

1.Detention is extended due to disputed findings and
2.the majority of applicants are being found to be bona-fide after all

then wouldn’t this suggest there is a problem with the initial assessment and THAT is what is causing the protracted delay?

Isn’t it also reasonable to assume that the Government could deliberately delay the procedure in the hope that applicants will give up and leave? (As it often does in the Court system).

If you were in the same situation and you knew you were right, would you give up so easily?

Hey wobbles, BOAZ_David and hasbeen are right.

These foreign terrorist devils are living in sublime luxury at our expense and don’t deserve our compassion.

If they’re having mental problems it’s probably because they are used to living in the desert and not in a tropical paradise. (Probably just pining for their camels or a good feed of dates.)

Everybody knows they are living in resort-like conditions with access to all the modern conveniences we have to offer.

They are obviously criminals who support an illegal immigration industry and gladly exploit their own children to get a foot in the door of our merciful refugee process.

Let’s cast these pagan demons out of our country, along with all the bleeding-heart leftist do-gooders, and we will finally be able to reap the benefits of the caring and compassionate utopia promised to us by our beloved Prime Minister.

Georgie seems to be applying the old fallacy of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this). Just because some refugees are allegedly suffering from mental problems when settled in Australia does not mean this was caused by time spent on a tropical island where they can mix freely in the community and be together as a family. More likely they were suffering these problems long before Naru. Or perhaps the stress of worrying whether their asylum applications will be successful contributes to the problem. If this is the case then living in Naru has nothing to do with it. It's simply an unavoidable consequence of illegally arriving in another country after destroying all your relevant papers.

By the way, if anyone else tries to hold up Europe's stupid and self- destructive asylum policies as an example of enlightenment and the way forward, I'll vomit.

rache, your characterisation of refugees as date eating, desert dwelling "foreign terrorist devils" was somewhat amusing but in the current climate, the irony of your attempt at satire may have missed the mark.

Bozzie, no, the Nauru experience can be isolated as a cause. When equally situated refugees are compared - the only difference being that one group entered Australia via Nauru - and the Nauru group has significantly worse outcomes in terms of their physical and mental health such that a SEPARATE program is needed to address those additional needs (a partially govt funded program, not lefty bleeding heart blahblahblah...) I'd say it is fairly reasonable to conclude that Nauru has been a significant causal factor.

All this talk of tropical paradises is absolute tosh. Nauru is basically a calcified hunk of coral in the middle of the Pacific where all fresh food needs to be flown in and temperatures are extreme. It's Woomera with water, only more isolated. Some paradise. Why do you think Nauru is so in need of the aid dollars that have been promised in return for copping it sweet when we lob boatloads of refugees their way?

None of this answers some key questions:

Why should developing states such as Nauru and PNG (Manus Island) bear the burden of processing Australia's refugees (especially where, in PNG's case, they are coping with up to 10000 Papuan refugees on their border)?
Why should any other state be expected to resettle any of the refugees recognised by this process of Australia's design?
There have been some intense emotions raised here and the 'Pacific Solution' is an enormously costly exercise, seemingly disproportionate to the tiny numbers of asylum seekers Australia receives. I'm genuinely interested - what, specifically, are people afraid of?

If the same Papuans flew into Australia they would not spend one day locked up, they would not be vilified as demons and they would be granted protection.

It is illegal to punish a tiny few people because they can't go to the Indonesian authorities and ask for visas to leave. We have seen last night that the Indonesian navy is going out and sinking the damn boats. Maybe these are the same cops that Australia trained to sink boats for us.

Why don't you folk tell us what causes this barbaric knee jerk reaction to what is a humanitarian cause?

We don't get to say to the world "OK if you fly here from China, Russia, Israel, Peru, Brazil, Lebanon and other places, even if you are war criminals (as the Sydney Morning Herald found) we will let you work and live in the community without penalty."

But if you are fleeing the brutes who slaughtered 183,000 East Timorese you will be turned away.

It is madness, nothing to do with border protection and certainly inhuman treatment of human beings. Some of you don't seem to understand that basic premise - we are talking about human beings in trouble.

I wonder though if you really believe your own vile cruelty or if you are school kids telling yourselves ghost stories to titillate yourselves.

Will the real Boaz David please stand up - the one who posted here a while ago seems a million miles away form the one we have come to know and love.
First he "cussed" - I have never seen him do that before - and second he refrained from any, I repeat any references to the Bible - My gob is well and truly smacked - I can only assume that the real Christian BD has been kidnapped and this other person has assumed his identity.

Another feature of his last post was that it was bereft of any concern about his fellow man and his wacky assumption that the experience of those incarcerated bears any resemblance to what I assume was his self imposed exile some where in the middle of no where. I guess he lived in some doubt as to how long he might be able to stay where he was but I figure he was also free to leave if he chose to

I also find it incomprehensible that people can be so sanctimonious about mental illness and the circumstances that might bring it about.
I dont for a minute think every single person incarcerated decompensates into a depressive illness or a psychosis - but I am damn sure a good number do just that.

It still befuddels me that people gete so upset about this issue - the real problem is not the fact that people want to come here but how we mismanage them once they arrive.

The process has so little to recommend it even as a means to control those who come to our shores - it is grossly inefficient, horrendously expensive, and for those who dont like our newcomers it fosters a climate of sympathy for them based on the fact they are treated so stupidly, it clearly has not discouraged people from flaooting over when the mood takes them and it represents cruel and unusual punishment.

Marilyn,
I think the reaction to most issues (including this one) is based on the historical political and economic strategy of using fear as part of everyday life.

Every day the media tells us what to be afraid of and reasons why we should dislike people – from the shonky builder to the welfare cheat to the potential terrorist.

Stories oscillate between heroes and villains and use our own emotions to control what we think and ultimately, what we believe.
(I bet that Today Tonight or ACA will include at least one of these stories tonight.)

Just like Crassus used the manufactured fear of Spartacus to take away the freedom of Romans, and Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to pass his Enabling Act, and Bush used 911 to implement his Patriot Act, we are all too keen to surrender our rights to politicians who purport to protect us from what we are made to fear – even if it’s just women and children in leaky boats.

If the immigration issue was based on a pure moral judgement alone, the outcome could be much different and if more people spoke out about the Reichstag Fire, then WW2 probably would never have started.

"Right is always right, even if no-one’s doing it and wrong is always wrong, even if everybody’s doing it."

Wobbles:

This isn't simply about irrational hysteria. You need to take a look at what is happening in Europe and North America where they have policies much along the lines that the refugee advocates want. Numbers did not explode immediately because people prefer to go to places where their co-ethnics have already settled. This is so that they have a support network. However, some always do come, mostly genuine refugees who are probably pretty desperate. Once that ethnic community exists then chain migration occurs, and the destination becomes more and more attractive. The people smugglers add it to their routes. Timothy J. Hatton of the ANU has written on this.

As the numbers build up it becomes less and less about refugees and more and more about illegal immigrants. The Migration Watch UK website gave some figures for the 1997-2004 period: 490,000 asylum claims (not counting dependants; these include spouses, children and in some cases parents and grandparents). From 1997-2002 21% of claimants were granted asylum, including after appeal, 16% were granted special leave to remain, sometimes for humanitarian reasons, but usually because it was not practical to remove them, 13% were deported, and nearly all the rest stayed on illegally. Deporting illegal immigrants who arrive without papers is often impossible. They tie up the system for years with appeals; they hide with the connivance of corrupt businessmen and politicians; it is frequently impossible to prove where they came from, and home countries often refuse to cooperate with deportation.

The illegal immigrants depress wages and working conditions and compete with poor locals for housing and public services. In the end your country becomes just another Third World hellhole, instead of them fixing up their own countries as they did in South Korea and Taiwan. I reserve my compassion for disadvantaged Australians, including the mentally ill Australians who are living on the streets. Once our own poor are looked after we can worry about also helping people outside.

Georgie, should Australia even have a policy on refugees? Apart from one of accepting them? It seems that we haven't even agreed on this most basic of questions. I say that of course we should, and this policy should have strict controls that only allow in legitimate people fleeing the real possibility of extreme persecution or death. After a fair & impartial hearing of the matter these people who are deemed illegal should have no further access to taxpayer funded lawyers and our legal system that they then proceed to play like a fiddle for years.

I'm not sure whether you and Marilyn just want them released into the community while their applications are processed, or automatically grant them asylum upon arrival. Here's my fear Georgie; that if we follow your option we would have people floating (or flying) up on our doorstep in huge numbers. We would allow a huge influx of unskilled people into this country with no prospects of employment or assimilation. I fear a real growth of a large underclass which is already well under way in this country. Just look at Europe's problems which are only going to get much worse.

I would be interested to hear your reasons why you think this wouldn't happen, or indeed why it wouldn't be a bad thing if it did, or why the damage to our country is worth the saving of allegedly persecuted people.

Ok, Bozzie, so you've articulated what your fears are. Now, what evidence do you have to substantiate those fears? What precedent do you have in Australia's history, taking into account current people movements in our region, that "people floating (or flying) up on our doorstep in huge numbers" is even a remote possibility? You made that assertion so it's up to you to back it up with credible evidence. Before you point to Europe as a cautionary tale, Europe is obviously very different geographically and politically. Our geographical isolation has meant that we have been able to keep very tight controls over immigration. The same cannot be said in Europe. It's a different set of challenges that they are dealing with.

While you're looking for that credible evidence I have a second question for you. What would happen if every nation followed Australia's lead and adopted our policy of repelling asylum seekers to offshore processing centres? Where would the refugees go? The answer is obvious and I won't insult your intelligence by asking you to provide it - international refugee protection would simply break down. Thus, the more pertinet question becomes, why does Australia have the right to adopt this policy, knowing that it is unsustainable for all nations to do so?

Bozzie, about 70,000 people have become asylum seekers in Australia in the last 16 years with only 15,000 of them locked up. Those locked up have been 45% from Iraq, 42% from Afghanistan and the rest from Iran, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Pakistan,Turkey and a few other places. 97% are still here as refugees.

Of the other 55,000 none of them were locked up and the world didn't come crashing down. Most of them, about 40%, are Chinese with others from Fiji, Thailand, Philipines, Aceh, Ambon, Timor, Peru, Brazil, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Russia,Serbia, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Israel, India, Bangladesh and others - 9% of them are still here as refugees yet we spent $3 billion locking up 15,000 people and left the rest free - some for 12 years or so.

Now which group are you afraid of considering that last year alone 700,000 temporary workers came to Australia from India, Asia and the UK and others.

Well Georgie the Lebanese problem springs to mind, (must have a short memory). Unskilled people with a totally different culture corralled into ghettos. I believe France had a similar problem with unskilled immigrants.

Name me a period in Australian history when unskilled people flooded this country? Over 90,000 Vietnamese boat people between 1975 and about 1983 is the only example I can think of, and they’ve certainly had big problems with unemployment and crime. Keep in mind I’m talking about unskilled immigrants, so it doesn’t apply to the Chinese, the Snowy River workers, the Indians etc.

I don’t care what the rest of the world does in relation to their illegal immigrants. That’s a silly argument that could apply to any situation you care to put forward. If Europe has a totally different set of challenges to deal with then their policies cannot be compared to ours.

Australia has always had stringent immigration policies so we have no idea what would happen if we relaxed them to the extent both you and Marilyn seem to want. If you want some evidence of what could happen look no further than France (and Europe in general).

Marilyn I’ve got no problem with skilled people; people who have something to offer this country. I wonder what your reaction would be if we had 70,000 Appalachian hillbilly’s float up in barrels? My opinion wouldn’t change but I’m not so sure about yours.

Neither of you have adequately answered my question.

Marilyn

Australia experienced the downside of not detaining asylum seekers early on. We found that a significant number tried to abscond. Thus the concept of detention centres evolved.

At first these centres were low key, but people left them and disappeared. So high walls and eventually razor wire became necessary. The unfortunate comparison with prisons became prominent in peoples’ minds.

It is just not realistic to allow asylum seekers to move freely in society, some of whom would be strongly inclined to make it as hard as possible for the authorities to deal with them.

Quite a few bad things have happened in detention centres, but just the same sorts of things could happen outside of them, where desperate people are involved. Things like assault, rape, inciting violence, etc. And quite frankly, if things like this happened in mainstream society, perpetrated by asylum seekers, it would not go down well for them AT ALL. There would be an almighty backlash. It could only take one or two significant incidents for the community to very strongly harden its view on the asylum seeker situation.

Also, asylum seekers who are not familiar with our society, its laws, practices and dangers, could be easy targets for the unscrupulous.

All-told, it makes eminent sense to hold them, for the sake of all concerned

The politics of fear seems to be working very well.
The more scared we become the meaner we get towards others less fortunate than ourselves.
Those who see the boat people as a threat and advocate drowning them or imprisoning them indefinitely have sure been educated by the Howard government. It would be cheaper to wlcome each boat person and give them each $100,000 than to keep them imprisoned for years offshore. It would certainly be a more more compassionate way of treating people.

Wobbles.
Just read your post and appreciate the effort and information you put into it.We must find ways to help people improve their own countrys without bringing the whole world here.
There are many sad stories world wide and ineed your correct many right here in Australia we need to fix first. The homeless street people you mention with mental health has increased by large through drug use.
I once watched a TV doc where they interveiwed a lady working to supply the drugs on the farms over there.

She explained in very good english what they made from their farm, which was not a great deal and who purchaed it and the huge proffit they made by sending it here to kill our kids.

There was something about her you could not help but like. I think it was her matter of fact , tell it how it is approach. While she was not happy about being paid so little when the middle men made so much she did say Oh well at least we get to destroy the Western World so thats a bonus.

Thats pretty much the thoughts of these people and what they really think of us.

Greeks and others who came in the past really wanted to make a life here.
These want to change our lives and our country so there is the difference.

Yo...SNEEKY... its still me.. *looks around with a slightly red face* :)
'cussing' ? hmmm.. I better goto my room and think about that....

Perhaps I allowed the ol 'flesh' to get the better of me eh :)

Wobbles... you have a point there about most of them eventually being found to be 'real' refugees.. but can you explain somethings ?...

1/ why is it that they often discard any documentation at the beginning, which apparently should have demonstrated their origins and assisted in the finding of legitimacy ?
2/ What changed that they were eventually found to be legitimate ?
3/ Why would the government find them 'not legitimate' at the first instance ?

My cycnicism is based on a number of cases where its just the 'man' who comes first.. leaving his family to face the persecution he claims to be fleeing. So, one suspects its really about 'testing the waters' rather than fleeing persecution. Usually, totalitarian or oppressive regimes will target the family of those they seek if that person has fled. So it does not stack up.

No matter to what degree things might be uncomfortable in the home countries of these people, if you 'bleeding hearts' want us to be more sympathetic to your views, the ONE thing you should do is STOP 'reading us their rights' in terms of UN this and UN that.. because when u do, you attack our sovereignty. I may have voted for the coalition, but I SURE DID NOT vote that we would sign up to any treaty which puts the UN sovereign over us. I think most would feel the same.

The simple solution to most of this is REMOVE our signature from the UN convention OR.... add proviso's and exclusions appropriate for our national cultural, social, religious,political interest, because unfortunately, the very existence of these refugees SHOWS how important these things are.

Wendy.. I would have grave reservations about bringing even Greeks here these days...

You said:

"Greeks and others who came in the past really wanted to make a life here"

I read a story in the paper the other day, where this THIRD GENERATION lady said at a greek cultural get-together "We are so happy being GREEK" or words to that effect.

I would have thought that after 3 generations she would have said she was 'Australian' rather than GREEK. So, whats going on here ? did they come here to be 'Australians of Greek heritage' ? or.. "Greeks building a new little Greece here" ?

Those of us of Anglo/Scot/Irish/Celtic background, don't (as far as I know) call ourselves "Scots or English" etc. We are Australian. But once there is a predominant culture established, others who are invited to share this nation, should do so with a goal of respecting and sharing the identity into which they arrive. i.e. Australian first, Greek 2nd. and Aussie first English 2nd.

It is not unreasonable to expect migrants to recognize and respect that this is an English language/culture. If they cannot, then please, don't come. If already here and cannot..then please go away :)

So, for me, it is most important that 'cultural expectations' of Australia for new comers is UNDERLINED IN BOLD TYPE in any visa application by foreigners.

1/ You will be expected to seek a self identification as 'Australian' when you arrive here.
2/ You will be assessed after a period of time as to your progress in this.
3/ Failure to embrace this new land and culture AND IDENTITY will result in the withdrawal of your visa !
4/ You will be expected to inculcate into your children these same values and attitudes.

and so it goes on... Im sure it could be better worded to sound less 'blunt object'-ish :) but I think you get the idea.

I'm not convinced that it is reeeeally you - I am still a bit of a doubting thomas - time will tell. Rgds Sneek

Nice try Sneek pete . However I am sure you have another covert name. I am not worried about greeks blowing up the place.
They share the same sense of humour even they are mostly not of extreme nature.

Anyway i am sure you will appreciate having Jolanda back.

Enjoy nothing lasts forever.