Rhian

“We treat convicted criminals far more leniently than you advocate we treat refugees.”

Excuse me; nothing could be further from the truth. Please don’t make assertions about what others believe when you don’t know them to be true.

You haven’t addressed my points about the importance of the deterrence factor or the need for a balance between the way we treat asylum seekers and the need to prevent an influx.

Do you think that we can offer the sort of treatment to asylum seekers that you would like to see without generating a massive increase in arrivals?

Given that there are literally millions of people who would come to Australia if they could, in an ongoing manner, how many do you think we could or should be accommodating?

Given that even the highest number that we could accommodate would still only be a drop in the worldwide bucket, would have practically zero effect on alleviating world poverty and refugee generation, and would be hugely expensive for the Australian taxpayer and economy, wouldn’t it be infinitely wiser to put our money, personnel and expertise into treating the causes of the problems at their sources as part of a coordinated international aid effort?

“But International goodwill and aid are not going to solve in a hurry the kind of crises that cause mass movements of refugees.”

And Australia accepting a few thousand refugees a year IS going to solve this problem?

Let’s not forget that we do take our fair share of refugees through the formal immigration program. I would like to see this doubled, within a much-reduced overall immigration intake.

We SHOULD be required to take in a certain number per annum, based on a per-capita basis of current population and our economic / environmental ability to accommodate them. We should also be required by international law to put at least 0.7% of our DGP (as recommended by the UN) into international aid, and that this aid be genuine and addressed where it is most needed and most effective.

And we should strive to prevent onshore asylum seeker movement.

Rhiann “You can’t neatly separate the “good” refugees who patiently wait from the “bad” queue jumpers “

I do not need to separate the refugees, the queue jumpers did that for me when they attempted to subvert the Australian migration regulations.

The “good” respect our laws of entry and settlement by waiting in line. Conversely, the bad choose to ignore due process, jump the queue and expect dispensation for their disrespectful attitude toward Australia’s own authority.

I find international conventions which are not supported 100% internationally have little real merit or credibility when used as any form of “standard”.

Finding excuses for queue jumpers does not help the position, it only appeases it.

Bronwyn-“What justification do you have to assert that boatpeople are thieves?”

I did not call them thieves, I merely pointed out that on the evidence of probability, someone who has reckless disregard for the rule of law and who attempt to circumvent Australia’s right to test refugee migrants before they enter the country is more likely to show similar reckless disregard for other people property than someone who has respected our legal processes by waiting in line for issue of a valid visa.

PS I am quite happy to reflect on my position, it is one which considers the rights of Australian’s to choose, through laws passed by our elected government, who can come to Australia. It respects our right to legislate and not be at the mercy of some unelected and unrepresentative swill humping antagonist with a carbuncle on their bum called “socialism international

Rhian, Yvonne and Bronwyn,
How about you put forward the numbers of "refugees" we should take in each year and under what conditions.

For instance. Do we reduce our skilled migrant intake to accomodate the "refugees'? How do we pay for inreased intake of 'refugees' and where would you advocate reducing the current spending to get the increased funds? Do we simply accept those that turn up on our shore? Do we let them loose in the community, where they may be vunerable to extortion by others, or never to be seen again? What about health checks to prevent massive influx of Hepatitis, AIDS or TB? What about the introduction of exotic diseases of plants and animals? Do they get Centrelink payments straight away?

It is one thing to be a critic of present policy, but it is quite another thing to cone up with another workable and practical alternative.

Some points seem to have been overlooked in this long and somewhat knotted string.
Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to refugees and incorporated that Convention into Australian law, where it remains.It is also a signatory to a number of other Conventions,Protocols and Agreements relating to refugees including the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The UN and internationally accepted definition of a refugee is:'' A person having a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,religion,nationality,membership of a particular social group or political opinion,is outside the country of their nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.''

Over the past 10 years the Australian Government has consistently broken both international and domestic law with respect to its treatment and handling of refugees.
When I worked on the Refugee Tribunal it was not difficult to weed out spurious claims,made easier for those Members who had lived and worked in the country of the claimant.
This Government has sought to put refugees into a category where
policy options exist,under the Convention and our own laws such options do not exist. Arrangements relating to the treatment and processing of refugees are legally not negotiable. There are no core and non core solutions available.
For the Howard Government to pretend that there are undermines core vales in Australian society which has paved the way for authoritarian consequences that all of us may come to rue.
Bruce Haigh

Col Rouge
I think the reasons why refugees flee and cross borders, often without official paperwork, are so compelling that they utterly eclipse any obligation to comply with migration regulations. Proportionality is the issue here. If my neighbour was trapped in his burning house I’d let him escape by jumping into my garden even though it’s technically trespassing.

Ludwig
It was you who said that asylum seekers should be imprisoned in case they abscond. I merely pointed out that we don’t let the same fears prevent us from allowing criminal suspects and convicts out on trust in some circumstances.

I don’t accept that the end justifies the means, so I don’t accept that treating the innocent harshly is justified as a means of deterring arrivals, even if it was effective, which I doubt.

It was you, not I, that talked about addressing the root causes of people becoming refugees. Of course we can’t solve the problem, but that is not a reason for dealing inhumanely with those who come here.

Banjo
I’ve indicated earlier that I think Australia can be proud of its formal refugee resettlement program. I’d be happy to see it increased, but I don’t feel strongly about that – we do more than many developed countries. We can’t set a quota for informal arrivals because we have no idea in advance how many there’ll be or what will cause them to come. We’ll have to continue dealing with these ad hoc. I just wish we'd do it more compassionately and expeditiously.

Bruce, great post.

Banjo, what we, as Australians, need to think about re our immigration is:

1. What is the total population Australia can realistically maintain.

2. Since, Australians are not sufficiently replacing themselves, instead of encouraging Australians to have more babies, thus adding to the population burden of our planet, immigration is a reasonable method of managing our population numbers.

3. Since skilled jobs should first and primarily be filled by young Australians or older Australians retrained, immigrants are not to be seen as a major source. Scrimping on training and education of your own people is not how to manage the economy of a Nation and the well-being of its citizens.

4. Australia needs migrants, there is a huge pool of desperate people wanting to make a new start. Just like after WWII, refugees, contributed enormously. Ideally, the majority of our immigrants should be people who need to come here to safety. So, the mix, should be the other way round to what it is now. In 2005-06 143 000 people migrated to Australia, these included only 14 000 refugees, all that is allocated for Humanitarian migrants. Australia had a net gain of about 60 000 in population numbers.

I have 3 teenage children. I get incensed with the difficulty and rigamarole re apprenticeships and tertiary placements. It is bizarre, that our own youngsters have difficulty in getting into Medicine say, yet we recruit doctors from overseas.

Or to get an apprenticeship. Kids, not at all academically motivated are being forced to stay in school till year 12, many wasting everybody’s time, while becoming more and more indoctrinated to seeing themselves as failures. One of my sons was in this situation. It was very, very difficult. A very frustrating uphill battle, while hearing from politicians we need to recruit skilled people from overseas. This is an outrage.