Hedgy..if you don't have an alternative, please don't call me names *biff* :)

MANDATORY DETENTION and NUMBERS.

The issue of mandatory detention should be seen in historical context.
It was introduced by LABOR with BI-PARTISAN support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_detention_in_Australia

All should read that link before making huge pronouncements.

An important QUESTION which arises out of this, is:

Given that the legislation was introduced DUE TO a FLOOD of Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees, DID IT....or DID IT NOT... result in the cessation of that FLOOD ?

From what I gather it did.

Why is there NOW a 'flood' of Africans seeking to enter the EU via the Spanish enclave in Melilla ? Is it possible that it has to do with the lax legislation regarding "anyone who manages to get their feet on the soil"

The European Federation of Young Greens (in Melilla) says this:

"The act of free movement, as well as the freedom to stay, are human rights*."

They then go on to explain the benefits of unfettered human movement and migration.
and..
"Solidarity with migrants in transit is not the same as trafficking"
and
"However, receiving money to cover costs of ethically motivated human smuggling" (is ok)

Notably, they pay ZERO attention to the cultural and social and political impact of such unimpeded movement EXCEPT that their silence on the issue underscores their OWN political motive which is that of International Socialism, which scrutiny would reveal they have a close connection to.

So, based on the actual verifiable EVIDENCE.. as opposed to emotional speculation and ill founded one sided compassion dancing with political naivity,.... the following conclusion is perfectly solid:

CONCLUSIONS.

1/ There is a strong POLITICAL motivation behind the 'open borders' mob.
2/ Lax border control = FLOODS of refugees. (yes.. it really does Marilyn)

The direct connection between tighter legislation and slowed assylim seeker numbers cannot be denied. Equally, that between lax border protection and LARGE numbers cannot be denied.

No BD - the big wave of Indo-Chinese refugees came through the seventies and early eighties -

while we always had discretionary powers of detention these were not mandated until the action of Gerry "the black" Hand - the leftist Minister for Immigration under the Hawke regime in 1992 -

that was the first toughening up measure and the wave of immigration ceased well prior to that

and since then we've tweaked the system into a much more brutal one - in the face of numbers no where near as high those who fled post Vietnam

So the link between tough laws and the cessation of immigration can be denied - it is a correlation at best - it was that wave once the new comers got established and Keatings love affair with Asia - that had the nation quaking in its boots about our Asianisation -

As I say all we've done is shift focus on another bogey man

Fair enough Sneeky.... I'm glad you have a good handle on that.

I've now read up on the rationale behind Gerry the black's and Labors policy.

1. To facilitate the QUICK assesment of assylum seekers.
2. To prevent 'slippage' into limbo of those who disagreed with any decision but who had been living among the community.
3. To avoid the cost of housing them in the community.

I totally agree with this approach.

Can you imagine the hassle of trying to track down people in the community who are already establishing roots, and if an adverse decision is made, would be less likely to comply ? I sure can.

Now.. the problem clearly arose in terms of 'extended' detention as a result of:

a) Disputed decisions, aided and abetted by migration agents and politically motived lawyers along with politically motivated grand standers such as the Greens and Democrats.
b) Deliberate discarding by assylum seekers of any information which might assist in identifying the true status of the people concerned.

I am not a total idiot. I know how it is possible to identify and verify the status of someone claiming to come from such and such a place.

1/ Ask them their village/town/country.
2/ Names of relatives and especially the head man/leader/chief.
3/ Find out the nature of any alleged persecution from those in that village, and from other contacts in the country.

I doubt that such an exercise would take more than a month or 3 because I can relate it to my wifes country and circumstances.

I don't think you looked at the bigger picture. Swarms of africans heading for the Spanish Enclave in Morocco to enter Europe. Why ? Lax border protection policy.

The UN information on 'reasons effecting choice of country' showed abundantly that it is NOT related to 'safety' but to kinship ties, economic reasons and ease of access.

A key issue is 'well founded fear' emphasis on 'well founded' rather than not well founded. Unless strict attention is paid to 'well founded' we could have every Tom Dick and Mohammed on our shores.

Well Sneekee, there must have been some people waiting to come here after the Siev X sank. 4000+ came the year before. That is an average of 80 a week, so must have been some in the "pipeline" which was the expression used. Even if the reported figures were exagerated there had to be some middle eastern people close to gathering for the next boat.

If we add the 68 survivors from Siev X to those that disembarked en route, that must be nearly another 100.

So the question remains. Where did these people go and how did they get there? I do not recall it being told how they got to Indonesia from Iraq in the first place and what travel documents they had to have.

I do hope someone can fill in these gaps in the saga

BOAZ_David,

People move from Morroco to Spain because it is a short distance in relatively sheltered seas. They travel in small boats. Australia is much more difficuly to get to.

It is a simple matter of logistics.

Banjo, I believe the 'boat people, entered Indonesia in the normal fashion then waited contact for a 'smuggler'. Once they were on board a vessel, they destroyed their passports and other identifying documents. It was all preplanned and costly. Then they landed here as poor 'asylum seekers'.