Secondary movement was forbidden by article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, with refugees obliged to ask for asylum in the first safe country (not necessarily a signatory to the Convention) that they came to. Marilyn Shepherd has said, and I have no reason to doubt this, that our politicians and diplomats have waived Australia's rights under this clause, so that asylum seekers cannot be rejected on the grounds that they have come from a safe third country. So far as she is concerned, this is the end of the story. We have to take these people, in whatever numbers choose to come, regardless of any negative consequences.

Ludwig and Franklin would disagree, no doubt subscribing to the Roman legal maxim that the safety of your country is the highest law. If laws or international agreements are out of step with what is needed to protect our people or environment, then they should be changed or abrogated.

Britain did what Marilyn Shepherd wanted. Asylum seekers were allowed to live in the community while their cases were considered and to bring in their immediate families. At first numbers were manageable, and they would have stayed manageable if only genuine refugees applied for asylum. However, numbers grew. During the 1997-2004 period there were 490,000 asylum claims, not counting dependants. Only about 20% were accepted as genuine, even after appeal. Rejected asylum seekers only had (and still have) a 20% chance of deportation. (See the Migration Watch UK site for the Home Office numbers and further details.) It is very hard to deport people if you cannot find them, if you cannot prove where they came from, or if their home country refuses to cooperate.

to be contd.

Britain obviously does not have unlimited resources. Because of international agreements or from fear of embarrassment, the government decided to treat the asylum seekers better in terms of housing than its own disadvantaged citizens. An agreement with landlords housing asylum seekers was put under the Official Secrets Act to prevent the public from finding out about this, but it was leaked to the British National Party, which put the agreement on its website. (Google BNP and Combined Joint Tenancy Agreement). The government decided it would be too embarrassing to prosecute.

The large numbers of fraudulent asylum seekers, plus mass migration from other sources is making British people very hostile. See here

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23474889-details/Four%2520in%2520five%2520say%2520Britain%2520is%2520facing%2520a%2520crisis%2520over%2520immigration/article.do

for the results of a recent YouGov poll. 83% of people surveyed said Britain has a population problem. 84% wanted immigration stopped or cut back, including a majority of migrants from Commonwealth countries. 39% said that immigration had resulted in no-go areas near their homes, 66% that British workers were being undercut, 60% that immigration was making their country more dangerous, and 58% that their culture was being diluted. Making the people in the host country so antagonistic is not in the interests of genuine refugees.

I think that Bronwyn has the right idea. We probably could take more refugees, while cutting regular immigration even more to compensate, but we need to make it clear that there is a cap and that fraudulent applicants are being weeded out.

Marilyn Shepherd is being abusive as a tactic to shut down debate. Just ignore her, unless she says something sensible. Or report her for flaming so that her post is deleted.

Hi Bronwyn

I am pleased that there is a lot that we agree on. That is how I recall it from our past discussions; no serious points of disagreement.

So it begs the question; how can you agree entirely with the content of Marilyn’s posts?

I might in time come to understand the frustration that she feels, but there can be no excuse for her style of bluntly offensive expression. It seems to me to be very highly schizophrenic for a person to be passionate about humanitarian matters while at the same time being such an ugly respondent seething with hatred towards anyone who dares not to hold the same views.

There is nothing “gutsy” about it. Any fool can be obnoxious. The ‘gutsy’ thing to do when confronted with people with whom you disagree is to maintain tact and decency and continue to probe into their arguments in a logical and neutral if not courteous manner.

.
“How many perish from exposure and starvation? How many have drowned and will continue to do so?”

Hopefully none, now that the asylum-seeker movement has been curtailed. No doubt plenty if it had been allowed to continue.

If strong action had not been taken at the time of the Tampa incident and in the follow-up period, many hundreds more people would have jumped on barely seaworthy boats and made south for Australia, with many more deaths no doubt resulting.

That whole terrible desperate momentum had to be stopped, and quickly and profoundly, for the sake of all involved.

It should have been dealt with much earlier. For at least a couple of years before August 2001, Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock had been frequently expressing concern about the build-up in the numbers of people preparing to come to Australia as asylum-seekers.

I don’t know how anyone can for one moment argue that an asylum-seeker movement or a refugee movement outside of our official immigration channels can be condoned.

There are other much better ways of addressing refugee issues.

“People like you Ludwig can sleep easy; those of us with a little more empathy will do a bit more tossing and turning.”

Bronwyn, I think this statement warrants a whole post in response.

I’ve done my fair share of tossing and turning for many years, trying to work out the best balance between humanitarian issues, environmental issues, quality of life, sustainability, etc….and how to deal with governments and the voting public that seem hellbent on taking us in the wrong direction.

As well as having been active in environmental organisations for decades, including stints as president of three of them (North Queensland Conservation Council, Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Townsville Branch and Sustainable Population Australia, North Queensland Branch), I have been a member of Amnesty International and Community Aid Abroad, and I remain a financial contributor to the Christian Children’s Fund, now for sixteen years.

I can guarantee you that I have a passion for humanitarian issues that is right up there with your own and have had for a very long time.

So please don’t mistake my desire to see strong border control and an absence of asylum seekers heading our way for a lack of empathy over refugee or humanitarian issues.

Australia's humanitarian efforts should be targetted to those most in need. Perhaps the following indicates the inadvisability of allowing Australia’s humanitarian efforts to be undermined by secondary movers and people smugglers.

In July 2001 a boat departed from Cambodia for Australia with 241 Afghans and Pakistanis on board, who were believed to have paid between $US5,000 and $US10,000 each for their journey. Note that the average per capita income of Afghanistan was $400 per year, thus $5,000 - $10,000 represents an amount of 12 - 25 times per capita income.

The boat was intercepted and most of those detained were found to be carrying Pakistani or Afghan passports, many Afghan documents indicating long term residency of Pakistan. The asylum seekers would have been able to apply for asylum in Cambodia as that country is a Signatory to the relevant UN conventions, however, only after interception did many of the group apply to the UNHCR for asylum.

Only 14 of 241 (6%) were accepted by the UNHCR as refugees, and the IOM facilitated voluntary return of most of the failed asylum seekers to their countries of origin. If this group of asylum seekers would have reached Australia and destroyed their documents en route, perhaps most would have been granted protection in Australia due to the difficulty in establishing their identities and disproving their almost unverifiable stories.

Destruction of identity documents also occurred during the rescue of asylum seekers by the Tampa. The first mate of the Tampa, Christian Malhaus, testified in a Western Australian court during a people smuggling case that during the rescue he actually saw asylum seekers throw their documentation (“passport like objects”) overboard before boarding the Tampa, thus making it very difficult to establish identities and disprove stories of persecution and facilitate return to countries of origin.

What is reality for politicians? PM Howard 'testified' to the Australian people that refugees threw their young children overboard. Faces in news photographs were intentionally smudged by someone. Nobody has ever been charged for this false pretense in broad daylight in front of us all. No apology was ever given to the refugees involved. So (franklin), who are we supposed to believe about what looks like whatever told as thrown overboard?

Then there is the present ongoing cover up and gagging about reality of compounding marine environment devastation and impact. There is silence to questions I am asking about an eddy spewing government dumped sewage nutrient pollution into GBR - Coral Sea waters, killing coral and seagrass food web nurseries. Impact is causing islander malnutrition and marine animal starvation, all kept quiet, covered up.

There is rot from the bottom to the top. Unmanaged sewage nutrient pollution dumped into ocean at Manly NSW and being drawn by tide and pressed by prevailing wind into Pittwater Hawkesbury River and other downstream estuaries. Devastated seagrass bubbles with rot on Pittwater foreshore. Seagrass now often piles high on the beach, epiphyte growth bleached white by sunlight. Seabirds in the region are now virtually non existent, rarely seen feeding on schools of seagrass dependent fish. A dead shark recently washed up with no explained reason. Evidence indicates marine animal starvation. Phone calls to local media are not returned, lack of respect for fellow citizens and marine environment is obvious. EPA hotline action fails to occur. Rot at the top motives warrant full inquiry.

What sort of democracy is this in Australia? Why is aquaculture policy being developed without marine environment policy? How can liars become leading politicians and accuse innocent troubled refugees while ignoring the plight of the marine environment? How can media be licensed and promote news business supposed to benefit community and environment, but instead cover it up?

I hope PM Rudd is a real Australian, strong enough to bring about real solutions without need to lie. I hope he will not let us down.