Ludwig
I did answer your question, you just don’t agree with me. I rule out treating refugees harshly as a deterrent (a) on moral grounds, for the same reason I rule out public flogging, (even though that might have a deterrent effect too) and (b) because I don’t accept that more humane treatment of refugees will lead to a substantial increase in arrivals. The numbers of people arriving here are determined by “supply” not “demand” conditions – historically it has been conditions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Vietnam that determine the numbers arriving here. There were time before the “Pacific solution” when boat people arrivals were negligible, and deterrence clearly wasn’t the cause.

Your distinction between “imprisonment” and “detention” is mere semantics, and therefore your argument that allowing refugees conditional access to the community is qualitatively different to letting paroled prisoners into the community does not stand up.

Divergence
Australia’s population rose by 270,000 over 2006. The extra fews thousand refugees Bronwyn has suggested is not going to make much difference.

Rhian,

You are correct. I read an extra zero, 200,000 instead of 20,000. Must get my eyes checked. 20,000 is quite reasonable for an offshore intake, if the regular immigration quota is cut to accommodate the greater number of refugees.

There is still the issue, however, of how this quota would be enforced on unauthorised arrivals, especially since Bronwyn is against detention. Even if their refugee claims are rejected, it is extremely difficult to deport such people once they are out in the community. All appeals must first be exhausted. Corrupt businessmen and politicians make it easy for them to hide. If they are caught, then the government must prove where they came from (often difficult when valid travel documents have been destroyed or never existed), and the home country must cooperate with the deportation. (See the Migration Watch UK site for the problems Britain has had with this issue. For the 1997-2002 period, only 21% of claims were accepted as genuine, even after appeal, but only 13% of the claimants were deported.)

Unless you are a complete pacifist, you accept that innocent people can be hurt in defending yourself. Just consider all the innocent victims of WWII, even leaving aside the terror bombing. Why is this case different?

Divergence
This case is different because refugees inflict no harm on us, and therefore any harm we inflict on them is not self-defence. Nor are we at war with them, but rather they are very often victims of wars elsewhere. So the damage we do them is not unfortunate collateral damage.

I believe we gain more than we lose from our migrant intake, including our refugee intake, because of the cultural awareness and diversity they bring. But the benefit of multiculturalism is a different issue, and I don’t want to stray off topic.

I’ll admit that there is an initial cost to the community in settling refugees, because many need support at first including language training etc, but over time they gain work and become productive members of the community, repaying that investment. Furthermore, because the number of refugees is so small the proportionate costs are pretty small in a country with a trillion dollar economy that’s just brought down a $236 billion dollar Commonwealth budget (to say nothing of the states’ spending, which is as much again).

The UK data you quote seem to be different from the Australian experience, as most arrivals claiming asylum here are found to be legitimate and are granted residency. And the experience with asylum seekers allowed into the community while their paperwork is processed is, as I recall, pretty good. Very few abscond

BRUCE....if it is so easy to weed out the spurious claims, mind telling us why so many 'spurious' claimants are still here ? (or were for some long time)

Let me guess. They 'disagreed' with the Tribunal decision.

So, the political parasites (Leftoid lawyers) jump on the job, and extennnnnnd out their positions, appeal after appeal, and while they are doing this, they (or persons similarly seeking to just 'damage' the government) arrange all these 'monitor groups' looking at the detention centres, creating reports and stirring the media all for the simple reason of a political agenda.

I agree,... it IS easy to determine spurious claims. But those notorious lawyers tend to cling stronger than a limpit mine to them.

Bronwyn, the case of 'poor mohammad' and 'Callous Alan' is just a heart jerk. Of COURSE such things are going to happen, but it so happens that Alan appears to have his own psychological problems. It does not change the fact that Mohammad probably 'country shopped' on the way HERE, leaving safety and assylum in other countries.

Country shoppers have no right of assylum in my view. If 'assylum' was truly their issue, they would (or SHOULD) happily take the first available place which provides them with safety.

CONVENTIONS and PROTOCALS. We can add restrictions, exemptions, and proviso's to suit our national interest. The sooner the better.

Most of you are ignoring the serious political and social ramifications of allowing more Muslims into Australia

Divergence

“Every time we have a war (even WWII) we kill and maim innocent people, not to mention depriving them of their property.”

I agree with this statement. It’s very much part of what drives my whole position on this issue. But I don't agree with your implication that we should just accept it as inevitable and of no concern to us in Australia. In particular, when we are the perpetrators of war, as we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a very real responsibility to do what we can to alleviate the suffering we have caused and to assist refugees. This is why I find John Howard’s position so despicable. He is happy to take us to war but he won’t face up to its difficult consequences.

“…we are likely to end up with 20% genuine refugees like the UK and not 85% or 90% genuine as at present.”

This is a false leap of logic. We are much further away than the UK and the vast ocean distances in most instances act as a natural barrier to all but the genuine and most in need.

“…every environmental indicator except for urban air quality is getting worse.”

I agree, our degraded environment is a problem and this is somewhat of a sticking point for me in regards to the whole asylum seeker issue. But on balance I still think we can afford a slightly bigger humanitarian intake than our current one. Protecting the environment shouldn’t have to come at the expense of our human rights obligations. And really these are very small when you consider the overall scale of the world situation.

If we scale back mainstream migration numbers, lower our water usage and energy consumption and decentralize our population we will still reduce our ecological footprint on both an overall and a per capita basis. If the Greens can reconcile their passion for environmental protection with a simultaneous concern for human rights, I think anyone can.

Ludwig

“Your ‘balanced approach’ wouldn’t work. It would lead directly to a reintroduction of the ‘Australia is a soft target for asylum seekers’ message that had spread around the world in 2001. Within weeks, we would have a massively increased rate of arrivals.”

I think you’ve succumbed to John Howard’s fear campaign on this one, Ludwig. Perhaps you’ve looked at that fridge magnet once too often!

Seriously, I think you overrate the deterrence value of harsh detention policies. As pointed out by Rhian, it is the “supply” rather than the ‘demand” conditions that determine the numbers of arrivals.

There might be some increase in numbers as you suggest but I doubt that they would ever revert to 2001 levels. There are many policies in place now that would prevent that from happening and even if we had a change of government they are unlikely to be rolled back any time soon. We've excised islands that were once key arrival points, we’ve increased our surveillance and interception of boats and we now collaborate much more closely with the Indonesian Government.

I would also like to reiterate Rhian’s point that it is repugnant to punish innocent people in order to deter others. Aren’t you ever troubled by the cruelty inflicted on individuals in order for people like us who are already living very comfortably to”feel secure”? How many asylum seekers drown when boats are intercepted and tuned back? We’ll never know. How many are left living in fear and squalor in shanty conditions in Indonesia? How many are being left to rot on Nauru, Lombok and soon Christmas Island? How many are refouled back to danger and death? Again, we’ll never know as the Government doesn’t follow up on what happens to those it deports.

I wasn't baulking on this issue, Ludwig. I just don't buy into your paranoia, that's all.