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.