This thread seems to be a wholly unnecessary stoush about policies that have now gone into the dustbin. TPVs have been abolished. End of story.

Yes North west shelf they have been abolished but that is not the end of the story.

It is just the beginning of the story as the mental health bills for refugees mount up, as the compensation claims start to become a flood instead of a small trickle, as the families become more and more estranged and the innocent victims of these vile visas lose their minds entirely.

Some people have waited 10 years for their families, some have been locked up for 7 years without trial or charge and must wait another few years to see their families and so on.

In September the book "Human rights overboard" will be published, this is the result of a 2 year investigation based on testimony from all sorts of people and official records of what Howard and Ruddock did to people.

These horrors inflicted on innocent people do not disappear with the wretched visas you know.

Cazza challenges anyone with any semblance of humanity to look an asylum seeker in the eyes and tell them they cannot, under any circumstances, be granted refuge in Australia.

Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya is one of the largest refugee camps in the world with more than 80,000 refugees from nine different countries and dozens of different ethnic groups. The refugees there are forced to deal with hostile locals, an almost total lack of economic opportunities, frequent gender based violence, high rates of crime and food shortages. Life is particularly harsh for single vulnerable women who have nobody to protect them. Australian’s refugee resettlerment program has a visa category for “Women at Risk” whereby women in such refugee camps can be resettled in Australia, virtually their only chance of escaping their horrific situations.

For a time until people smuggling was effectively halted Australia’s refugee resettlement program had to be suspended as all resettlement places were being taken by secondary movement asylum seekers. As Minister for Immigration, Phillip Ruddock visited refugee camps in Africa and Asia, and it was he who had to look the refugees in those camps in the eyes and explain to them that they could not be granted refuge in Australia as the places in Australia’s resettlement program were being taken by secondary movement asylum seekers. Thankfully he took their side and worked diligently to halt people smuggling and the influx of secondary movement asylum seekers.

It could be asked why refugees in camps such as Kukuma did not become secondary movement asylum seekers themselves and travel around the world to seek refuge in affluent western countries. The unfortunate reality is that most of the world’s refugees cannot put together a few dollars, let alone the $5,000 to $10,000 per person required to pay people smugglers.

Refugee advocates such as Susan Metcalfe and Cazza take the side of secondary movement asylum seekers whom they believe to be most worthy of compassion, however, would their belief be so unshakeable if they visited refugee camps such as Kakuma and had to look those refugees in the eyes.

Cazza emotionally states “Can you really listen to the history of the Jews of Nazi Germany and be proud to have denied them sanctuary ?”

Is Cazza aware of Godwin’s Law of the internet, and if not could he/she please google it or visit the following link:

http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/09/07/1062901943789.html

TPVs don't automatically need to have harsh conditions, such as denial of the right to work, study, bring in one's immediate family, etc. Conditions in an asylum seeker's home country can easily change shortly after his arrival. Why is it inhumane to send him home after a few months, even though it might be to do so eight years later? It would be quite possible to automatically convert a TPV to a permanent visa if conditions were still unsafe after a reasonable time. If a country is likely to become a place of first asylum, TPVs will also lessen the resistance of the host population to the asylum seekers, since they know that the asylum seekers do not gain the right to stay permanently, competing with them for resources, which may well be in very short supply, simply by placing one toe on their country's territory.

Refugee advocates so far have been remarkably unwilling to deal with some serious issues, instead, painting their opponents as racists who object to helping a few thousand people a year who are in desperate trouble. Why should international agreements be taken to be written in stone, even if they amount to suicide pacts? What about the limits to growth issues raised by Plerdsus? What about the ability of a country to absorb enormous numbers of claimants (499,000 in Britain, not counting dependants, from 1997-2004)? What about economic migrants who pose as refugees (not a problem here, but a serious problem in Britain where claimants are allowed to live in the community, with only about 20% of them found to be genuine for the 1997-2004 period)? What about the extreme difficulty of sending fraudulent claimants home, when they have destroyed their travel documents? In Britain for the same period, an asylum seeker only had about a 20% chance of being deported, even if his claim was rejected and rejected again on appeal? See

http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/

How can large numbers of people be helped without big votes for Far Right parties from disadvantaged locals or mob violence, as in South Africa?

Cazza,

You say you are not in favour of unrestricted immigration. How do you reconcile this with your support for the queue jumpers?

After all, if there are a limited number of places for refugees, surely they should be handed out based upon greatest need. The illegals are ignoring this process and demanding to be taken in ahead of possibly more deserving refugees without the money to jump the queue.

Marilyn,

The only raving nutjob around here is you. every time someone points out a flaw in your argument you just go to another topic. This might be called On Line Opinion, but most of us try and provide some evidence for what we suggest.

All you do is rant and rave, Have you even finished high school?