Well Col, I can't see any point in arguing. We couldn't be any more different if we tried. Of course there is some truth in your argument, but it isn't the only one.

In my opinion, a country as wealthy as ours should open its doors to people who aren't doing so well. I think that is a compassionate thing to do - and not faux compassion at all - so long as we keep our migration intake sustainable and in balance (i.e. fair to the people who are already here in Australia).

BTW, I happen to think that abortion is not a good idea, as you might remember from our earlier encounters. It's much better for all concerned if people steer away from the practice altogether in my view.

"I have seen malignant trolls like you throw your
weight around web sites in the past."

Have a good look in the mirror, Col. You are every bit as bad as what you accuse others of.

Secondary movement asylum seekers are asylum seekers who move from a first country of de facto asylum, moving long distances around the world through countries with little interest in persecuting them, in order to settle in affluent Western countries. To enable payment of people smugglers secondary movement asylum seekers have by necessity access to considerable financial resources as compared to the majority of the world’s refugees.

The sinking of SIEV X was indeed a tragic occurrence, and the sinking in itself was a powerful statement against the criminality of the people smuggling. The Howard government is to be congratulated for working diligently towards ending people smuggling.

It is instructive to look at the financial aspects of people smuggling. The media reported that onboard SIEV X was a family group of twenty three members, only one of whom survived. Leaving aside the tragedy (and indeed it was a tragedy), with payment to people smugglers of $5,000 to $10,000 per person, the family group would have needed a total amount in the range of $105,000 to $210,000 for payment of the people smugglers.

For some perspective of the amount of $115,000 to $230,000 it needs to be realized that oil poor middle eastern countries have per capita incomes in the range of $500 to $1,000. For further perspective, a government clerk in Saddam’s Iraq received a salary of around $30 per month (source: ABC’s 7:30 Report). So, it can be seen that it is not asylum seekers escaping with only the clothes on their backs who can become secondary movement asylum seekers, only those with substantial financial resources.

The Australian government, by necessity, is required to look at the bigger picture in regard to asylum seeker and refugee policies. Could it be logically and reasonably argued that a family group of secondary movement asylum seekers with financial resources of $100,000 to $200,000 travelling from countries of per capita income of $500 to $1,000 should take precedence for resettlement over those in more dire need, for example, single women and their dependant children in refugee camps such as Kakuma in Kenya ??

I’d like to know where the $5000 to $10,000 figure allegedly paid by boat refugees came from.

At those sorts of figures, the 421 passengers on board SIEV-X would have paid between $2 and 4 million – which hardly calls for the use of leaky boats. Most refugees with such resources buy fake passports and (still) come by air.

I believe that some villages pool their resources to sponsor some of their youngest to leave and some remaining families take out loans to finance others but these figures suggest boat people must all be brain surgeons or lawyers to be able to afford such passage.

Translating this to an average Australian annual income of $50K would mean that we would have to pay somewhere between half a million to a million dollars EACH to get the same transport opportunity.

Secondary movement also incorrectly implies that all those countries they pass through are all signatories to the UN Refugee Convention.

http://www.sievx.com has much more info for those who really want to know.
.

The major problem with Australia’s refugee program being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seeks is selection becomes based primarily on financial ability to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers rather than need.

Another problem is verification of the stories of persecution of secondary movement asylum seekers. DIMIA reported that 80% of secondary movement asylum seekers arrived in Australia without documentation. This was encouraged by people smugglers to make verification a very time consuming, difficult and costly task. It also made extremely difficult the return to countries of residence of failed asylum seekers.

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 per person for their journey (note: average per capita income of Afghanistan is $400 per year).

The boat was intercepted and most were found carrying Pakistani or Afghan passports, many Afghan documents indicating long term residency of Pakistan. The asylum seekers could have applied to the UNHCR for asylum in Cambodia which is a signatory to the relevant UN conventions. Only after interception did many of the group apply for asylum.

Only 14 of 241 (6%) were accepted by the UNHCR as refugees, and the remainder were returned to their countries of origin. However, if this group of secondary movement asylum seekers would have destroyed their documents en route and then reached Australia, perhaps most would have been granted protection in Australia due to the difficulty in establishing their identities and disproving their almost unverifiable stories of persecution.

The destruction of documentation occurred during the rescue of secondary movement 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 overboard before boarding, thus making the establishment of identities and disproving of stories of persecution very difficult.

Perhaps the above are indications that it is inadvisable for Australia’s refugee program to be based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers.

Franklin opens (opines) with : "The major problem with Australia’s refugee program being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seeks (sic) is selection becomes based primarily on financial ability to pay thousands of dollars to people smugglers rather than need."

Since his opening premise is factually wrong, the rest of his contribution is worthless. Australia’s refugee program is far from being based on people smuggling and secondary movement asylum seekers.

The authoritative figures are readily available at http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm

Between January 2002 and April 2006, fewer than 250 unauthorised boat people have arrived in Australia (http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/75processing.htm)

Even assuming that all of these were smuggled in, that's a minuscule proportion of all refugees (an average of 62 a year out of an average of 13,000 a year for refugees overall).

The vast majority of Australia's refugees are referred to Australia by the UNHCR (6,003 in 2006-7) or are refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program (5,183 in 2006-7). These two categories are clearly people assessed by experts to be in need and Australia grants them permanent settlement visas.

Those who arrive in Australia outside those two categories are at best granted only Temporary Protection Visas and at worst are detained until their status can be verified and their need assessed. Some are eventually deported. In 2006-07 only 305 onshore Temporary Protection Visas and 1,396 Permanent Protection Visas were granted.

Why don't people check the readily available facts before they repeat the trash that passes as opinion about the refugee program?