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’.