David as you are obsessed with Chinese women having more than one child and call it a crime I have to point out that this woman was in detention for 4 years with no access to contraception. She was not in China and was prepared to go home after her baby was born. OK?

Ludwig. What sort of oppression do you think we should put onto people who have already seen their families murdered or been tortured, or seen their nation blown up? When people fly here they are not oppressed at all and oppressing refugees is illegal.

David your rant about the other nations closer to Iraq than here is deranged. All of the nations you claim could have been accessed by Iraq have appalling human rights records themselves - and our refugees who came were Kurds and shi'ites. Those muslim countries you are whining about are sunni.

As for Israel. Please spare me. They have one of the worst human rights records towards muslims than any other western nation.

Beside all that you could say those nations are closer to everyone who flies here. But here is the thing I said before - it makes no difference. Refugees are allowed to come here from anywhere on earth however they can.

Kapeesh yet or have you all lost your sense of common decency for fellow human beings.

Ludwig this is the only nation on earth that has ever legalised locking up babies and little kids and calling it border protection.

I would suggest that people bother to do some research, get your facts straight and come back to me on it.

Thankyou Marilyn

You basically said that because Australia has a good human rights record, pretty much ALL Middle East refugees should come here :) Well said. "My work is now done". Almost.

You neglected FRANCE GERMANY ENGLAND etc... which are all closer and LESS RISKY to reach.

You make an important point. "They can come here from ANYwhere in the world, HOWever they can."

So, again, you are totally neglecting the practical outcome in terms of our sustainable population, social cohesian and political stability, because the ramifications of your position are that we should open our borders to all and sundry. Well.. sorry, I have more compassion for Australians than to allow that to happen.

You are the one obsessed with the Chinese lady. I told you, I'm not prepared to look at 'case by case' situations, well deserving of compassion as they may be. Of course.. individual cases should be treated with sympathy. UNTIL WE CHANGE OUR LAW.... and that...is the important issue.

and of course...that is MY POINT.

As long as we have immigration laws which allow abuse and opportunism by:
-Job/Country shoppers
-Left wing Lawyers who defend such people from the PUBLIC purse (Legal Aid)

We will have a mix of genuine and non genuine. As soon as we fix our legal situation, and make it more immune to such abuse and opportunism, we will not be having this debate.

The ONLY rational and ultimately compassionate approach to refugees is one which protects not only them, but us. You know what happens at the billabong in the dry season when the water/grass dissappears, when the rabbits and roos have overbred..they ALL DIE HORRIBLY due to lack of food and water.

So, no matter WHICH way you look at this issue, there WILL COME A POINT (Yes..shouting) where it becomes neccessary to say "That's it...no more" and no matter how terrible their circumstances, the door will have to remain closed. Agreed ?
So, better we make the laws now, than doing it on the run after it's too late.

P.S. have you noticed the drought ?

Marilyn

You can't resist a go at Israel can you? It is not even the subject of this debate. And you cannot resist rudness to those who disagree with you. You seem to think you are right and everyone else is wrong. On every subject!

Israel has a much better attitude to its Muslim citizens than many Islamic countries have to their Jewish, Christian, Zoroastrian and Druze citizens. At least Muslims in Israel have a right to vote. But don't let truth stand in the way of a good hatred.

I suppose you wil now abuse me. But I tried.

Ludwig

I do think razor wire is not dignified teatment. The asylum seekers could be in main centres of population with association other Australians. And the children should be given schooling. And the polies should definitely not denigrate them as a vote winner.

BD - I made no reference to political parties in my question of you - you must have confused with another inquistor.

I simply asked - if we are at war in upper case as you put it - what is the next logical step to take agaisnt all those listed who are undermining our way of life?

And I was criticised for refering to the author of the article as a pedant - perhaps I should have said he was a man with a passion for detail - I meant no offence -

The questions posed need answers - it is not about immigration - that ship has sailed - there is wide spread agreement we need more immigrants -

The "Border Protection Bill 2001" is here:

http://www.australianpolitics.com/parliament/legislation/2001-border-protection.pdf

William Deane identified, in a speech at the University of Queensland, much of that which occupies those in this forum.

http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=4509

Logic, Marilyn

I don’t like the idea of putting any non-criminal behind razor wire. But I would love to know what the alternative might be for asylum seekers.

Free movement in society has proven to not be a realistic option. Being held in low-security centres has also proven to be problematic.

Of course being held behind razor wire is not dignified. But it comes down to providing a reasonable quality of life and fostering what dignity we can within the necessity of a secure detention environment.

OK, so the treatment for some could perhaps have been better. I don’t know. But for many people, no matter how well they are treated within a detention regime, it would not be good enough. Only free movement would be acceptable.

You can imagine the outcry if a free-moving asylum seeker committed an assault, rape or other crime, or had this committed against them or broke the law in some significant manner due to ignorance of the law. Just one serious offence committed by an asylum seeker in the open community could galvanise the community against all asylum seekers. We would also be bound to see a lot of people fail to show up for appointments and attempt to abscond and meld into society.

Also, the continued high (let alone rapidly increasing) rate of influx in 2001 would have galvanised the community against asylum seekers. So the deterrence factor was extremely important. Just imagine the strife that would have ensued, for all involved, if the full potential of the developing influx at the time of the Tampa had occurred.

I think we need to get away from the notion that it is oppressive or unnecessarily undignified to hold asylum seekers in detention centres, and just realise the practicalities involved.

So all-considered, I think Australia’s humanitarian treatment of these people has not been too bad over the last decade. It could certainly have been a lot worse, or become a lot worse with a poorer handling of the whole saga.