Wouldn't India be the first port of call for genuine refugees from Sri Lanka? If they have bypassed India then they are not genuine refugees or asylum seekers. They are asylum shoppers.

Governance is an issue for all Australians.

It is about dealing with PEOPLE!

I think that rather than projecting the policies at oversea's nations Australia needs to look at these polices itself. I.e. Infrastructure in rural isolated communities. Equal Opportunities and Equity. Education through the Media. Protocols that build capacity, that build nations through socio-economic inter-relations. Civic Empowerment can not be achieved anywhere unless you understand JUSTICE is the first principal in SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT.

I believe the Humanitarian issues that are left unattended in Australian communities are not much different to the issues that are occurring overseas.

We, I believe, breed a culture of fear and distrust.

Apathy is not about LOVE it is about HATE!

Until we become more aware of JUST HOW these problems arise, at ground levels, we will not be able to see through the maze of problems that are being experienced in other cultures.

Our gaze is too one-eyed. Goodwill is not just mediating, it is about doing something constructive, at the causal level.

Learning about peoples, who are caught up in discomfort, fear, conflict and poverty, would be a start.

We need urgently to get this right.

With war and conflict (everywhere) and major issues in climate change looming, the baby boomers crisis all occurring in an over-populated world... locking people up... for what ever reason... is too easy and does not address the long term phenomena facing people everywhere, either now or over the next decades.

This is why our own foreign efforts fail.

It seems to me that Fair Go Australia has lost its cultural spine.

Australia is not fair about anything to do with human rights be it inside this country or understanding the claims of those who need our assistance (from) overseas.

I know this does not address your essay exactly Susan. I will come back to you on this issue.

.

You rightly say that current policy on illegal immigration is formulated in the context of domestic politics. Isn't this called democracy? Do you expect the federal government to follow a policy on illegal immigration strongly opposed by a large majority of electors? If it did would you expect it to stay in office?

The sad fact is that Australia cannot save the world. The main underlying problem causing all this trouble is burgeoning world population. This is never mentioned, possibly because the only policy on which the Vatican and the muslim world agree is that nothing must be done to reduce the increase in world population. Unfortuately, nature is controlling it in its usual brutal way, with the four horsemen of the apocalypse (War, Famine, Pestilence and Death). This situation is one for which we bear no responsibility and cannot solve.

Most Australians feel that things are going to get much worse in the next few decades, as an increasing world population confronts diminishing resources, particularly oil, and that we are likely to be threatened by hordes of desperate starving refugees attempting to land here.

If this situation occurs, they will be prevented from landing by the armed forces of the Commonwealth.

How many years will it be before the Navy is using immigrant boats for target practice?

All this PC crap is really getting to me. How long will these journalists be allowed to lie to the Australian people. The vast majority of these refugees are just looking to take advantage of a wealthy country. My wife came from wartorn Vietnam 16 years ago. Then refugees were really refugees and she tells me that they were thankful to any country who let them in. They didnt pick and choose. Now she tells me she would not trust the vast majority of them. Remeber this is coming from someone who has actually been there, done that. They simply want all the benefits of living in an advanced western country, including unemployment benefits which must appear like winning the lottery to them.

I read a story from Norway recently. The police are trying to bring in a law to prevent asylum seekers from returning home. The police are finding many of them catching planes home for a holiday within weeks of them successfully receiving asylum from Norway for persecution at home. Why would you go back to the same place yoru being persecuted. The real reason is their just after social benefits from the richest country on earth. Norway's most popular political party is now the anti-immigrantion People's party.

Wake up Australia, this article by Susan is PC crap.

On-shore .. Off-shore processing - sometimes you have to compromise. I, like Susan, have visited Nauru on many occassions over the last few years and have also seen the 'pacific solution' process in action.
Australia commissioned the Swiss based "International Organization for Migration" (IOM) to administer the off-shore processing.
IOM have established an infrastructure in Nauru that has been inspected by government representitives from all parts of the world including several visits by the UNHCR. All of these visitors have expressed some form of praise for the concept, structure and operation of the project. While in Nauru these people are housed in air conditioned accomodation. They are provided with clothing, personal toiletry items and spending money. They are provided with professionaly prepared buffet style meals, 24 hour access to medical attention, free access to international telephone services and the internet, and they have access to education services - if they want it. All this in addition to participating in a processing system facilitated by an internationally recognised organisation, can be compared to "refugee camps" in other parts of the world run by international bodies like IRC and UNHCR where they are lucky to recieve food let alone be fed.
Not all these people are genuine refugees. The ones found to be genuine are offered protection by Australia and by other friendly countries who subscribe to IOM and UNHCR services. The others are offered a variety of solutions including assisted re-settlement in thier country of origin.
Over and above all of this, the Republic of Nauru is a tiny nation struggling to survive and to some degree Austrailia has contributed to the destiny of the nation. Using Nauru as a processing centre allows Australia to provide many infrastructure and social services to the nation, that would not normally arise under the usual realm of international aid and funding.
The on-shore vs off-shore argument could go on forever but in this situation particularly in the case if Nauru, I believe it is fair and equitable, and the best available option at this time.

In response to the posting by LunaEclipse, I would like to remind the poster that the so called "Pacific Solution" was never praised by the UNHCR. I would also remind the poster that the UNHCR's Regional Representative in Canberra called the situation of the pacific solution after his visit to Nauru in April 2005 as "completely unacceptable." More than one of the Psychiatrists who worked with the IOM called the situation there as a "Psychiatric Nightmare." So I believe it's really SHAMFUL to lie in behalf of the UNHCR trying to justify stealing people's life as a "humanitarian action." It can be any thing but humanitarian.
If the person has really visited Nauru several times, I must have met him/her since I was the last one to leave Nauru (Feb this year). So please do not tell about any one praises the "pacific solution" except the Australian government itself!
I also believe that what I call "human rights atrocities" committed by the Australian Government against the detainees in the phase 1 of the so called pacific solution during more than 5 years must be made public.

Mohammed Sagar
the last refugee left Nauru

Oh Luna Eclipse. a bit disingenuous.
"The ones found to be genuine are offered protection by Australia and by other friendly countries who subscribe to IOM and UNHCR services."
Rubbish. Other countries that take proven refugees under formal resettlement programs are very reluctant to assist with small numbers of refugees from Nauru/PNG they rightly regard as Australia's responsibility.
Australia does ultimately take most of them but after years of unnecessary delay and suffering. The psychological problems that result from being caught up in war and conflict are severely compunded by being incarcerated on Nauru or PNG for years. This then places an extra burden upon Australian health systems when the refugee does arrive here.
Just to emphasise the point. Its the detention environment of immigration centres, Nauru, PNG that turn otherwise psychologically sound people into people with mental health concerns. Current policy and legislation actively damages people. That can never be humanitarian.

a suggestion that lunaeclipse read just a few of the news reports on people detained in Nauru since 2001. it seems the buffet meals were not an adequate solution for everyone who spent years in offshore camps. People are placed offshore to deny access to fair processing and process - a non-solution that is expensive, unfair and unnecessary. a few links -

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/suicide-warning-led-to-visas-for-nauru-refugees/2006/11/05/1162661553417.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1718483.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1774355.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/last-man-standing/2006/09/29/1159337339866.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Unfortunately, we have 6.5 billion going on 9 billion people on a planet that can sustainably support perhaps 2 billion in what most of us would consider modest comfort. This main underlying problem is not our fault, and there is nothing we can do about it, as Plerdsus said. Of course waste, mismanagement and conspicuous consumption by the rich don't help, but if all the resources were divided equally we would all have a level of consumption like that of Botswana (see the Redefining Progress site).

We can well afford to help a few thousand refugees a year, but all the experience from Europe and North America is that the numbers will rapidly snowball if we take in unauthorised arrivals. The Migration Watch UK site has published some Home Office Figures. 490,000 asylum claims were made in the UK between 1997 and 2004. This figure does not include immediate family members who arrived after the claim was made (about a third more). 21% of those arriving between 1997 and 2002 were found to be genuine and granted asylum, and about 13% deported. The rest stayed on. Once asylum seekers are in the community it is very difficult to deport them. All appeals must be exhausted, corrupt businessmen, politicians and officials help them hide, the government must be able to prove where they came from, and home governments frequently refuse to cooperate with deportation.

I will take the Sunfires and Shoshanas of this world more seriously if they devise a "humane" strategy that doesn't end with us being swamped.

divergence, you are missing the point. There can be no justification for inhumane policy. Just how far would you be prepared to go in terms of 'inhumanity' to alleviate your fear of being swamped? Are you prepared to persecute people to keep them out? We are dealing with innocent human lives. If your concern is self preservation, as you say, then you would probably go to further lengths than these people if you were in the same situation.

Succinctly put Sage – “they are not asylum seekers, they are asylum shoppers”

Nice,, you get my support.

Of course one of the primary reasons for processing offshore is to stop access of various slimy lawyers, who glean a living from billing these hapless souls and then divert their charges to the government which we, as tax payers, end up paying.

For my money a tough response to all illegal entrants is the best way of controlling what might otherwise become a flood of “economic refugees” (one for you to add to your lexicon Sage).

Some will complain that it is expensive to maintain off shore facilities but running Baxter and Port Headland etc. with “illegals” in there for years is no cheap option either. The saving is in the ones who do not end up in such places, creating havoc and wrecking property.

Miacat, not sure what you have been sniffing out there in the desert but it is not doing you much good.

Divergence’s observation about an unfettered population explosion is right.

The problem is not all Australias and not of Australian making. It is the underdeveloped world who are creating the explosion.

The best thing we can do is hold back from being inundated with illegal immigrants pretending to be refugees and hopefully leave a semblance of sanity to survive in an ocean of uneducated, unemployable people breeders.

LunaEclipse: the game is up. Your polished text is just too slick-sided to be scribbling, from a mug poster. You're presumably a professional PR writer, paid, to push a particular viewpoint, whatever that is. Probably posting anonymously from a ghost site.

LE gave away some interesting details, about how harsh the Pacific Solution is. I need to go into a bit of detail, please bear with me.

First, money. LE says detainees get money – sounds good. One thing people like to do, is choose their own clothes, and Nauru has shops where they can do this. But Nauru detainees don’t get to go clothes-shopping. We are told they are “provided with clothing”. This conveys a prison officer issuing uniforms, or a charity doling out old stuff. And of course, if you provide clothing, you impose your choices on people, about what they wear. Remember, in normal prison, losing the right to wear your choice of clothes, is part of the punishment.

Next, food. LE says “They are provided with professionaly prepared buffet style meals " - ie standard Australian canteen fare. Sounds good, but to a person from Sri Lanka, that's unfamiliar – they'll prefer home style recipes, at least occasionally and might like to prepare meals with friends. But LE reveals detainees never get to do this, even if they know how to cook. Food is always chosen by others; always comes ready-cooked; always in a foreign style. Presumably there is nowhere provided, for detainees to cook for themselves if they want to.

Also, phone calls are not free. And "assisted re-settlement in their country of origin" - nice try at spin, on forced repatriation. I could go on.

So LunaEclipse, the game is up - your style gives you away. Presumably paid to keep an eye on the web, find posts quickly, in obscure chat groups, then shoot them down. Your employer must keep a tough grip though - he had you working til 11 pm, the day Ms Metcalfe posted, to post your words.

Sunfire,

Unless you are a Quaker or the like and thus a pacifist under any circumstances, even at the cost of your own life and that of your family, then of course you accept inhumane treatment of innocent people. In WWII the Allies' troops shot at German soldiers who had been conscripted and may have been personally innocent of any responsibility for the war. Even leaving aside the question of terror bombing, innocent children and old people were bombed by mistake or because they happened to be near a military target. People starved because supplies of food had been cut off. You are reaping the benefits of what was done then because our society, including you and your family and friends, has survived. It cannot survive unlimited population growth.

Would I personally try to sneak into another country if my own life or my child's life was at stake? Yes, possibly, but I wouldn't be surprised or indignant if the locals shot at me or sunk my boat with me in it. It is a hard world where there isn't enough to go around, and people can be expected to look after their own first.

You might also consider the innocent lives lost when people like you tempt asylum seekers onto leaky boats.

dear Divergence, we are not at war with asylum seekers.

And, Australia has never had the same number of arrivals as other countries, and never will, and the ones who have arrived by boat or plane have generally fitted in well. It is a bogus debate you are having with yourself.
I don't tempt people to come on boats, as you know, their circumstances do. More attention needs to be paid to why people are leaving their homes. If you are scared of outsiders coming, and so concerned about them being killed by drowning, then focus your energy on trying to help them stay home safely. Saying it's all too hard and doing nothing but protect your own little world is your answer -many others feel differently.

BriscoRant I appologise if my wrting style is more polished than yours, I am not a professional writer - you should be able to tell that from my spelling! - nor am I employed as a net spy for any government or agency - I like you, have an opinion. Unlike you and your vocal friends, I have seen what we are talking about - first hand. Nauru's Asylum seekers (AS) DO go clothes shopping, in fact clothes are cheap in Nauru and AS are allowed to buy trade or wear what ever they like. The quality of food provided, given the location and transport facilities, is high, but if the AS don't like it they don't have to eat it - they are allowed to cook thier own, again in fact, the Burmese AS currently in Nauru prefer to do this and are provided with the ingredients and facilities to do so.
Shoshana - Over 1200 persons have been processed by IOM in Nauru alone. How many 'on-going' psychological cases, supposedly originating in Nauru, still exist? Please don't just pick a figure - Check the statistics. And sunfire's suggestion that IOM - the world's peak migration organisation - is unfair in its processes is ridiculous.
And then there is The Islander the man who has seen it all, but Mohammed, I have to disagree again. The Nauru operation HAS been praised by various advocates of the UN and UNHCR. Your quotation of "completely unacceptable" and "psychiatric nightmare" are noted but are used here out out relative context. On the question of us meeting - Yes we have, and talked, and shared a meal. I dis-agreed with some of your views then, and still do. If you seriously believe that the Australian Government has committed human rights atrocities against you or others - call them to account - in the appropriate forum.
Despite the illuson of horror professed by some people, the conditions under which the Nauru AS exist are considerably better than the average native Nauruan and in many cases, a lot better than those endured by some Australians.

Sunfire,

Numbers of asylum seekers do not remain static. Before 1980 there were less than 100,000 asylum claims a year in all the European countries put together. By 1992 there were nearly 700,000. See

http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3b810de44.html

Timothy J. Hatton of the ANU has written on the chain migration effects that cause this. Basically, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants don't like to go to places where there is no community of their co-ethnics to offer support. Once the numbers build up in a particular place the destination becomes more and more attractive. Eventually it pays people smugglers to service the route.

You say it can't happen here, but where is your evidence for that assertion? I might believe you if this were New Zealand or Iceland, but people recently made it here from Irian Jaya in dugout canoes. If Indonesia chose not to discourage boat people, numbers could get very big, very fast. If you are sincere in your belief that the numbers won't build up, then you wouldn't object to a cap, say 15,000 or 20,000 claims a year allowed, and everyone after that turned back. I would have no problem with this myself so long as there is some screening.

As I posted before, the ultimate cause of most refugee problems is overpopulation (aggravated by mismanagement), leading to resource shortages and people fighting among themselves. The idea that we can tell foreigners how many babies to have or what leaders to support is laughable, but if these problems are not addressed, any aid is just poured down a rat hole. There are now twice as many Ethiopians as in the 1980s famines when Bob Geldof made his appeals.

LunaEclipse,

You again assert, that the Nauru regime, has been praised by UNHCR and others. Really?

Perhaps you should post the sources (ie references/URLs) on which you base your statements. There are some confusing inconsistencies between your other posts, doubtless unintentional - but nevertheless, we need to be sure of what the UNHCR actually says. So we need to be able to check the originals.

No need to quote them - though you will probaby try to do so. To make a fair assessment, Readers need the bit that interests you, plus its context. The word limit here - 350 - might not let you quote enough, for us to get the full picture. We really need to read the originals.

Incidentally, if you and Mohammed have shared a meal on Nauru ... I wonder how many other people reading here, would consider it acceptable, to do as you did? To visit someone in the country where they live .. share a meal ... then criticise them, identifying them by name [as you have just done], on personal matters, in public [this is a public forum] .. while you hide behind anonymity?

So you have a little explaining to do here. And a few URLs to post.

We can leave the inconsistencies in your earlier posts, til later.

Mike.

LunaEclipse,

Unlike both you and Susan, I am a Nauruan. I have met Susan on several occasions and am confident that she understands the situation on Nauru, in terms of both the locals and our guests, well enough to present an informed piece. As a Nauruan, I have lived amidst the 'Pacific Solution' (as a benefactor, you allege) and am prepared to offer an alternative view to that of DIMA.

Yes, Australia commissioned the IOM to administer the off-shore processing. It is unclear to me why this happened. Nauru remains, to the best of my knowledge, the only ‘processing centre’ in the world that the IOM administers. It is my belief, and I would be delighted to be proven wrong, that it was a purely economic decision. For all the IOM staff that worked with the IOM, the predominant nationality was Australian. What does this mean (in the simple terms that I understand)? It means that a large percentage of the fee for which the IOM was commissioned was returned safely to Australian shores.

The IOM have established an infrastructure in Nauru – this is an undeniable fact. The asylum seekers – as they must be called – do inhabit air conditioned rooms. They do have free access to international telephone services and they do have access to the internet. This is a relative luxury in Nauru where Nauruans pay considerably high prices for the same services. However – and this is where I believe your thinking is so flawed – the other services you mention are not in any way luxurious. The housing you mention is far from luxurious. I had regularly visited with asylum seekers on Nauru. I had been welcomed into their accommodation. The most luxurious dwelling I had visited upon was little more than a converted container.
I would like to point out the most obvious flaw in your ideas. You justify their captivity by mentioning their accommodation, toiletries, clothing, meals, education and medical attention. This type of thinking is exactly what is wrong with the ‘Pacific Solution’.

I would like to point out the basic premise of the human right to accommodation. Under this principle, humans – which the asylum seekers clearly are – are guaranteed the right to adequate shelter. This principle also guarantees them the human right to an adequate standard of living as well as the right of access to safe drinking water and sanitation. There are also several ‘peripheral’ rights such as the right to choose one's residence, to determine where and how to live and to freedom of movement.
Let there be no mistake – the asylum seekers, more often than not, ate more nutritious meals more frequently than did the Nauruans. But this, again, is no luxury. It is not a privilege. Many countries recognize, formally or not, the human right to nutirious and available food. These ‘buffet’ meals that the asylum seekers were presented with were always adequate, were always nutritious and were always prepared with respect to their various religions. Most importantly, this food was their human right. Was there an alternative to feeding them as they deserved to be fed?

As to the medical attention that they received – and this will be revisited – these people were, for a great deal of their time, denied any more than the physiological medication needed to keep them alive. Look no further than the mental deterioration of these men for proof of this. What medical attention they received was their right. Not only was it their right but it was also the obligation of the medical professionals associated.

Many of these asylum seekers exercised their right to education, which was the avenue through which I grew to know them and their struggles. It is an injustice to your own reasoning that you have concluded them lucky to have this right. There is no luck involved in the provision of ‘ meals,…medical attention, free access to international telephone services and the internet, and … education services’. It is their inalienable human right to have access to these things as well as to the ‘adequate’ housing that was afforded them.

Finishing hubby's post:
None of what they received was a gift from Australia; it is all recoverable in terms of costs and it was all their basic right. That there are worse camps than this in the world does not make Australia’s crime any less; if anything it gives Australia an unwanted association with the other governments of this world which either create or do not recognise refugees. You at least recognise that they were ‘asylum seekers’ which betrays an understanding that there must be something from which they seek asylum.

The most misleading – and patently untrue – aspect of your argument is that this ‘Pacific Solution’ was somehow of benefit to Nauru. From the outset, this was designed to be of advantage only to Australia. So desperate was Australia to close the deal on Nauru that free medical treatment was provided to the then-president Rene Harris and gifts were given to other ministers. But there was an existent means through which Australia could have provided infrastructure and social services; it is called humanitarian aid.

When the camp started, it was partially reliant on Nauru’s power supply. For this reason, much was offered towards supporting our power plant. (AusAID claims to have spent upward of thirty million dollars during this period. There is no physical evidence of this expenditure; no generators sounding, no new buildings.) As the camp grew better equipped to supply its own power, support to Nauru’s power plant was virtually withdrawn. When media attention was drawn to the psychiatric condition of the last two refugees on Nauru, and after incessant requests from the Nauruan government, assistance was provided in establishing a Nauru Mental Health Service (NMHS). When the last refugee left Nauru’s shores last month, so did that health service. I was completely unsurprised. I had speculated some years before this that once the Pacific Solution was ended, once the camp was closed, that the Australian government would once again close its Consulate-General and aid would dramatically decrease.

The withdrawal of support to this NMHS, and the two professionals involved, is, in my eyes, a clear indication of what we can expect to happen in the years to come, when Nauru has outlived her usefulness to our former colonial masters.

To readers of LunarEclipses post: please consider what LunarEclipse offers you and then consider that, as it comes from a DIMA employee, the opinion being represented is not a balanced one. I would also ask you to consider that the Pacific Solution is not the best one available for any of the parties involved. It is expensive for Australia, it is unbearable for the asylum seekers and it makes a prostitute of Nauru.

Best regards,
Xavier Barker

P.S. BriscoRant,

Please do not try to further distort the facts. The refugees did have free access to phones, did shop, did many things.

I wrote this article about Australian governments'(past and present) trying to avoid the messy problem of dealing with vulnerable people. I did not discuss the conditions of the detention camp in Nauru.

The comments by luneclipse present the picture of a club med style resort where people are comfortable and relaxed and everything is fine. This is not how people living in the camps in the past have felt. Many asylum seekers are traumatised, some have been tortured or badly abused before they arrive. The anxiety and distress they feel is intense regardless of conditions in the camps. The Australian Government is clear in public statements that they do not welcome them.

Tonight 82 Sri Lankans are on their way to the camp in Nauru and we will wait to see how they cope with their situation. I know there are some caring people in Nauru who will watch out for them as much as possible, I know they will receive food and shelter and basic health care, but there is no doubt that it will be hard for them. They may be left to languish for many years in a country that they will never call home.

The conditions in Nauru are currently adequate for providing food, accomodation and addressing basic needs for asylum seekers held there, a psychiatrist is available on site - but as Xavier points out, this is the least we can expect.

Lunaecipse also claims that IOM process people's claims in Nauru - in fact UNHCR processed the people from the Tampa and one other boat arriving in 2001, Australia's immigration department did the rest of the more than 1,500 people taken to Nauru and Manus Island. It seems clear that mistakes were made in people's cases which would have been overturned if people had been able to access the Refugee Review Tribunal in Australia. There is no independent appeal process for negative decisions when people are processed offshore.

Since 2001 the conditions in the camp in Nauru have not been static.

Early reports from those who were there talk of water shortages, no power, etc..As I am sure Xavier could explain better than me, these are usual conditions for Nauruans who have fallen on difficult times. The conditions have recently improved for asylum seekers (not Nauruans) but the funadmental problems of offshore processing have not.

I have met many kind and caring Nauruans on my visits and I feel a respect and warmth towards a country that finds itself trapped in a deal that may not ultimately be in its long term interests. I too am extremely concerned by what will happen when the Australian mission ultimately pulls out. Will Australia abandon the Nauruan people when they are no longer useful?

Here are some of UNHCR's comments from a submission to a senate inquiry last year:

Fair and efficient asylum procedures

22. ........ To reiterate the point made in UNHCR’s 2002 submission to this same Committee, “If lesser standards relating to procedures or lesser status accorded under these procedures are envisaged due to the nature of arrival of asylum-seekers, this would not be in accord with international protection obligations”.

5. It is the opinion of UNHCR that the experience gained from off-shore processing on Nauru, introduced by Australia in October 2001, should not be considered the “outstanding success” it is characterised... but to the contrary has resulted in prolonged detention-like situations of asylum-seekers and refugees alike, as well as extended separation of families. The practice is also known by UNHCR to have contributed to serious mental health problems.

6. With regard to the proposal that those taken to Nauru for off-shore processing be resettled in countries other than Australia, UNHCR is concerned that this creates the possibility of refugees being unable to find durable solutions in a timely manner.


Barring access to the RRT and national courts would seem to be a serious flaw in the off-shore processing regime, given that the RRT and the national courts of Australia, being independent of DIMA, are key bodies guaranteeing the accuracy of asylum decisions and therefore important legal safeguards against refoulement.

Xavier Barker's Wife -

Thanks for the PS and correction, for taking time to tell us, how things are on Nauru - it's appreciated - and the word limit on the forum, can make it a bit difficult to get the whole picture across.

Thanks for contributing that information to this discussion. It's difficult for us on the mainland who are concerned, to understand how things are on the island.

You also remind us that things are not easy in Nauru, and the welfare of folk who live there, is another issue as well, besides welfare of the asylum seekers.

I'm still waiting to hear from LunaEclipse, about the URLs .. but he/she seems to have gone silent. Ah well...

All the best ...

Mike.

Xavier -

I'm a little concerned, that you say I distorted the facts.

If things in my post, were not correct - I am glad to have them corrected.

However, please note - all the facts in my post, were quoted from another poster, LunaEclipse, and you'll find that I am careful to say only what LE tells us. LE told us he/she had visited Nauru several times, had visited the camp, and knew how things were. I took LE at his word. So if what I wrote does not match up with the facts - it's because the person I was quoting, was themselves not reliable.

Also - from what you say, a lot of Nauru people are helping the asylum seekers. I am happy for the asylum seekers that this is happening. Unfortunately, our government does not seem to have a good record for treating asylum seekers well. There are plenty of people in Australia who would help asylum seekers settle here, and would be glad to have them in Australia - but unfortunately a small number of people have set themselves against asylum seekers here, and it is them that the government takes notice of. The government could easily ignore those people, but it chooses instead to follow them. not good for Australia, and puts on other countries, burdens that Australia - a rich country - should be accepting, itself.

Please keep us informed. It is hard here to know what is going on in Nauru. Even in the detention camps here, journalists are not allowed in, and it's hard for us the public to be sure, what is going on.

Mike

Brisco Rant,

The government takes little notice of what ordinary people think about other policies, such as Work Choices, so why do you imagine they care about what you or I think about asylum seekers? Has it occurred to you that the government might have been watching the blow-out of numbers of asylum claims in Europe over the past two decades? See the Migration Watch UK site for the UK Home Office statistics. In the UK there were 490,000 claims between 1997 and 2004. The actual number of people was considerably larger because asylum seekers are allowed to bring in immediate family members and in some cases parents and grandparents. Only 21% of the 1997-2002 arrivals were accepted as refugees, including after appeal, but only 13% were deported, because of the difficulty of deporting people who are already in the community, even if their claims are ill-founded.

Mandatory detention discourages ill-founded claims, because the people who make them will stay in detention, away from those juicy First World living standards. The Pacific solution isn't cheap and there are other problems with it, but Britain spent approximately 2 billion pounds on asylum seekers in the community in 2004 alone. It is not as though there were not plenty of British homeless and other disadvantaged people who could have benefited from that money, say the cancer patients who were effectively condemned to death because their surgery was delayed so much by the underfunded health system.

The response of the refugee advocates is to say that Australia will never get more than a few thousand claims a year, which won't cost that much and ought to bother no one, apart from a few white nationalists. If they were sincere, they could immediately defuse the opposition from folks who are worried about being swamped by calling for a cap on numbers of claims per year. If the cap is never reached, no one is disadvantaged, after all.

BriscoRant,

The comments which concerned me were the ones like 'Nauru detainees don’t get to go clothes-shopping. We are told they are “provided with clothing”" and "LE reveals detainees never get to do this, even if they know how to cook. Food is always chosen by others; always comes ready-cooked; always in a foreign style. Presumably there is nowhere provided, for detainees to cook for themselves if they want to."

These things you attribute to LE, however he never said them. It must be made clear that the processing centres are not the hell-holes that many wished they were. It is obviously convenient for some to attribute miserable conditions to the refugee camps; people would be more able to understand being physically uncomfortable than being disenfranchised. But it can really only be the illegality, immorality and irresponsibility which can be criticised.

Thanks,
Xavier.
P.S. On one occasion when LE attempted to enter Nauru without permission, it was a consideration to place him in the camp until he can prove his identity, declare him a menace to society (but provide no reason) and let him wait there whilst we take our time processing him. It was reckoned that aid would promptly stop, however.

Divergence, why don't you ask the persecutors around the world to put a cap on the number of people they persecute. Until you have some answers for people who will be killed if they stay in their country it is not possible to take you seriously.

Also, your facts are not correct. Note UNHCR reports of falling asylum claims around the world in recent years:

UNHCR: Asylum applications in the last five years drop by half
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/news/opendoc.htm?tbl=NEWS&id=441929762
GENEVA, Mar 17 (UNHCR) – In the last five years, the number of asylum seekers arriving in all industrialized countries has fallen by half, according to preliminary annual figures released by the UN refugee agency on Friday. Asylum applications in 50 industrialized countries fell sharply for the fourth year in a row in 2005, reaching their lowest level in almost two decades.
"These figures show that talk in the industrialized countries of a growing asylum problem does not reflect the reality," said UN High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres. "Indeed, industrialized countries should be asking themselves whether by imposing ever tighter restrictions on asylum seekers they are not closing their doors to men, women and children fleeing persecution."

Sunfire,

You were the one who asserted that numbers would never be large, not me. If you believe what you said, why not agree to a cap? It shuts a large proportion of the opposition up immediately, and because numbers will never reach the cap, no one will be put into detention, except briefly for health and security checks. Put your money where your mouth is. Of course, you may have the problem of illegal immigrants crowding out genuine refugees, as has happened in Europe.

The numbers I quoted are correct, as you can check, since I gave my references. The statement about European asylum claims increasing from less than 100,000 a year before 1980 to nearly 700,000 in 1992 actually came from a UNHCR document. It is true that numbers have fallen off in the last few years. This is because there are push as well as pull factors (how bad it is in the home countries) and because the European countries have mostly gotten tougher. Britain still got about 40,000 claims last year, and the US and Canada approximately the same amount (see Migration Watch UK and the Center for Immigration Studies at www.cis.org). The push factors are likely to get worse as overpopulation and environmental deterioration, and resultant ethnic or religious cleansing, also get worse in many places, so this situation may not last.

The Howard government is taking a tough line here, because asylum seekers threaten his policy of high population growth. Any suggestion that immigration is out of control may well result in big votes for Far Right parties, as has happened in Europe, where they actually have a caucus in the European Parliament. A million people voted for One Nation in 2000, and the government doesn't want a repeat.

To quote UNHCR once again

With the numbers of asylum seekers at a record low, industrialized countries are now in a position to devote more attention to improving the quality of their asylum systems, from the point of view of protecting refugees, rather than cutting numbers," said Guterres. "Despite public perceptions, the majority of refugees in the world are still hosted by developing countries such as Tanzania, Iran and Pakistan."

How are you going to contribute to protecting refugees? All you are interested in is that you might be a little less comfortable if more people come here. Why don't you focus on the migration program, we take many more migrants than refugees. I am not interested in your fears about your own comfort and I am not trying to promote people coming by boat. I don't think you will find support from any side for encourging people on to boats so your cap idea is a furphy. But it is a reality that people will come on boats when they have no other options and we have to deal with the human beings involved fairly and humanely. You simply cannot seem to understand that these people who arrive are as human as you are.

I don't have time for this kind of debate that is so unproductive, so you will have to excuse me for not replying anymore. I am sure you will continue with your views regardless of what anyone says.

Divergence:

Sunfire is on the right track.

Australia already has a refugee cap and he doesn't need to ask for one. DIMA uses quotas for all migration schemes, including refugees and has done for years. In round figures, it’s about 12,000 places a year– including asylum seekers, people from refugee camps, and special humanitarian visas – little changed since 1996 - though since then we've become a lot wealthier and could easily take more refugees.

According to DIMA annual reports in 1996-7 the govt made available 12,000 places. In 2005-6, 12,339. These are the targets DIMA is expected to achieve – no more. DIMA gets many times these applications annually.

Second, you imply our situation’s like Britain’s, where only 20% of those seeking asylum had genuine claims. Perhaps the Australian figures might be more relevant to your argument.

here, 90% of asylum seekers have genuine claims. See Frank Brennan (“Tampering with asylum”, UQP 2003, p.113). Brennan is well known, adjunct fellow at ANU, and reliable. The quote: “With the fourth wave of boat people, mandatory detention was imposed on a group of whom 90% were proved to be refugees” Fourth wave, means 1999-present.

Robert Manne supports that in Quarterly Essay (Issue 13 2004 p.89). Manne says there were nearly 10,000 asylum seekers. By 2004, he says 9000 had been given temporary protection visas. I’m presuming these were refugee visas. DIMA is notoriously tight-fisted with its visas, as my overseas postgraduate students know. DIMA puts the onus on you to prove you deserve a visa. Even then, DIMA might not give you one, unless you appeal.

Brennan also gives numbers arriving by boat here, they're nothing like the figures you give for the UK - but I'm out of space.

BriscoRant,

I don't have a problem with 12,000 people or even 20,000, just with an open-ended commitment, "however many God sends", which seems to be what Sunfire wants. I also accept (and haven't denied) that most of the asylum seekers who come to Australia are genuine refugees, but believe that mandatory detention may be responsible for this difference between Australia and the UK. Paying thousands of dollars to a people smuggler to get to Australia isn't worth it, if your phony claim is going to be rejected and you will never get out of a dentention camp except to go home. Britain's problem would have been far more manageable if only the genuine ones came.

My real issue is with high population growth, whether it comes in the form of regular immigrants, asylum seekers, or Howard's baby bonus bribe to the underclass. We are running up against severe environmental problems on a number of fronts, including water shortages and land degradation. Every environmental indicator is getting worse, except urban air quality. This is not the view of some fringe Green group, but of the government's own State of the Environment reports from 1990. This doesn't even consider possible effects from peak oil or climate change. Most of these problems are proportional to population as well as to per capita consumption, and it is possible to show that population is the greater factor in some cases.

Sunfire's speculations about my motives are wrong. I have a comfortable house with a reasonable sized garden that was built before the boom and inflated enormously in price. I might also benefit from cheap home help and gardening services when I get older. One of my two children has a very good job. I ought to be thanking the government, but I despair about the long term future for my children and younger friends. I make no apologies for rejecting the view that only people matter, that other species can go to hell, nor for putting the welfare of my fellow countrymen ahead of the welfare of foreigners.

It is these discussions that make this forum so valuable. Be it radio, TV or the forums restriction to a limit on words... the value in learning more about these discussions and seeing them argued as viligenitly as seen helps us all.

Thank You, I believe we need more of this effort. I agree refugees have a right as ALL to health - education - food and housing. Why is this so hard for others to understand?

I believe processing anyone off-shore is a bit like what we might read in "Madness and Civilization": A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason by Michel Foucault.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

It is so sad to see this kind of treatment still going on... vulnerable peoples everywhere.... no matter what we know of their circumstance .... treated as Lepers - something alien and foreign - as something to Fear.

I am sure we could do better than this should we ever find the Common Sense and WILL.

http://www.miacat.com/