Rhiann” But refugees – unlike us conventional migrants – can’t sit safely and hopefully waiting for their applications to be processed.“

Australia does not have an “unlimited” intake of all refugees but a defined annual quota.

The number of refugees available far exceeds the quota.

My point is simple. Consider the circumstances of two refugees, both equally worthy of acceptance.

Their only difference is

A: One is sat in a refugee camp for say 5 years, having submitted his papers and is awaiting for due process

B: One is a recent refugee but has engaged in the criminally illegal action of attempting to evade Australian migration laws by paying a people smuggler to get him into Australia at all costs and regardless that he is queue jumping ahead of A.

My preference is to reward the respect displayed by A and discourage the disrespect displayed by B.

Your preference is up to you but I bet if I lived next to A and you lived next to B, given the disregard and disrespect B has demonstrated for the law, you will have a greater need than I to lock up what can be readily stolen

Banjo

“…the SIEV X sank in Indonesian waters and was Indonesia’s responsibility.”

The SIEV X sank in international waters and credible evidence suggests it was within Australia’s surveillance zone. Australia and Indonesia were collaborating in an Upstream Disruption Program at the time in which boats were being deliberately overloaded and sabotaged as part of a deterrent strategy. Many questions remain unanswered as to the role of the UDP in this particular sinking. It is wrong to claim SIEV X was Indonesia’s responsibility. Australia was up to its eyeballs in this and one day an inquiry will prove it.

“The Tampa picked up people from a sinking vessel and was proceeding to port in Indonesia when she was hijacked by the people she rescued and made to sail to Christmas Island.”

Again, this is incorrect. The Tampa was closer to Christmas Island than anywhere else at the time of the rescue and was required by international law to take the rescued passengers there. This is the point at which the Australian Government intervened, well before the time you stated. It ordered the Tampa to take the rescued asylum seekers to Indonesia which was much further away. The boat had no facilities to accommodate these people, some of whom were unconscious and suffering from dysentry. No wonder the Captain stood his ground and refused to follow such a callous and illogical directive.

Regarding children overboard, the reason the asylum seekers disabled the boat’s engine was that the Australian navy was using gun fire to force the boat to turn around and go back to Indonesia, a journey both the boat and the passengers were incapable of surviving. In that situation, I think we might all resort to similarly desperate measures.

Yes, Banjo, I might “work on the emotive angle”. Afterall, we are talking here about the lives of vulnerable men, women and children who are suffering enormously. But I make sure I have my facts straight just the same.

Bronwyn,
It is all conspiracy theories is it not?

Fact. The Tampa captain altered course to Christmas island after a number of the rescued people entered the bridge and made threats relating to persons on board. As evidenced by the captain at an inquiry. That is a hyjacking!

Fact. The SIEV X was an Indonesian vessel, with an Indonesian crew. It was loaded and sailed from an Indonesian port. It sank off Indonesia. The survivors were rescued by Indonesian fishermen and taken back to Indonesia. The responsibility for the seaworthyness of the vessel belongs with the Indonesians. Go ask the Indonesians to conduct an expensive inquiry so blame can be aportioned.

I do not rule out the irresponsibility, recklessness and negligence of the pasengers for allowing their wives and children to sail on the vessel. The amazing thing is that it took so many voyages before a catasrophe occured.

But none of this suits people like you, who want to believe conspiracy theories.

Col Rouge

You can’t neatly separate the “good” refugees who patiently wait from the “bad” queue jumpers – most of the former were themselves without proper papers at some point, even if their unauthorised arrival was in some other country. And people coming here without authorisation are not necessarily “criminally illegal” – international conventions that Australia has agreed to abide by require that refugees be given asylum even if they don’t have papers.

Ludwig

We treat convicted criminals far more leniently than you advocate we treat refugees. We don’t prohibit bail, parole or home detention on the off chance that suspects and criminals might abscond or re-offend. We don’t lock them up indefinitely, or take months or years to hear their cases. We don’t regard making the innocent suffer as justifiable because it might deter the guilty.

I’d love to live if a safe and peaceful world where no-one is forced to leave their homes, families and roots to flee violence and persecution. By all means, lets try to contribute to that happening. But International goodwill and aid are not going to solve in a hurry the kind of crises that cause mass movements of refugees – from Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Congo, Iraq. These are caused by violence and the breakdown of security, often instigated and implemented by those countries’ own governments. We can’t justify neglecting the victims of these conflicts on the grounds we’re hoping that a few more aid dollars will make the problem go away.

Col Rouge

What justification do you have to assert that boatpeople are thieves? Have you ever met any and listened to their stories? Do you have any idea of the chaos and danger they face before and as they leave? Do you have any proof that they coldly and calculatedly choose one option over the other and one country before another? Most have never heard of Australia before they flee let alone know where it is or how to get there.

I'm going to include a brief extract about a hardened Vietnam viet whose similarly harsh views toward boat people changed when he actually met one. Unfortunately, word and posting limits will probably delay it somewhat, but hopefully you'll come back to read it and when you do perhaps it will help you reflect on your own position.

Rhian and Bronwyn, you're valiant efforts in attempting to open the eyes of some of the posters here is to be commended.

It is remarkable how ignorant and small minded some people are. It shows that they are absolutely convinced that never will they ever be in a situation themselves where they may have to flee.

The most pathetic posts are where people bleat on about how asylum seekers bypassed some other country or so. They obviously are completely unaware that all the Western countries combined only have to deal with 1/4 of refugees. The majority of refugees are in poor developing countries. Countries which are least able to deal with an influx of people. Pakistan has the largest number of refugees for in stance. Indonesia also struggles with many refugees and internally displaced persons.

Australia's whining about 1,000 asylum seekers is embarrassing. We have a large migrant intake, which includes only a very small refugee intake. It would be a great start to change that balance first. A 'queue' would then become a reality.

Migrants, who are not refugees, all come to Australia for economic and lifestyle reasons. Why those people who came here as migrants who had to jump through all the hoops to be allowed in, I’ve done them myself, are so resentful towards refugees is a mystery to me. It’s all a matter of whether or not you had a choice. Migrants to Australia freely choose to jump through the hoops for economic gain, not personal safety.

Is it reasonable that a nation like Australia, who does participate on the world stage should then somehow remain immune to the plight of refugees? We want to make money on a global stage, but when it comes to people we are isolationists?

There is no reason that is rational that justifies longterm mandatory detention, the pacific solution or this bizarre trade with the USA.