The more I think about it, the more I see the latest developments as bad news.

Surely the most important thing is to have a very strong border-protection policy that doesn’t trap people in limbo. That is; one that doesn’t provide any incentive whatsoever for people to try and come to Australia outside of our legal immigration program.

The softening of mandatory detention and the reversing of the onus of proof could very well trigger a host of new arrivals. The main humanitarian issue here is to make sure that desperate people don’t get caught up in the horrible saga of people-smuggling, rickety boats and a highly uncertain determination when or if they do make it to this country. This is vastly more important than the mandatory detention or otherwise of a tiny number of people.

If a new onshore asylum-seeker movement is generated by these changes, the policy will have to be very smartly hardened. If no further movement is created, then the new policy is basically meaningless…if it isn’t going to apply to anyone!

So all-considered, it should have been left alone, and the strong deterrence factor not tampered with.

Ludwig,

So long as the Indonesian government cooperates in suppressing people smugglers, Kevin Rudd and the other politicians can posture as great humanitarians at no practical cost. I suspect that the policy will be quickly tightened up if conditions change in the future.

If this were simply an issue of helping a few thousand people a year in pretty desperate trouble, I would agree with George Williams. However, Europe has given us a lesson on the practical results of the policies he promotes. The basic problem is that, even apart from mismanagement, there simply aren't enough resources per person to raise the world's entire population out of poverty. This is obvious from the various environmental footprint sites. It is shown explicitly by a graph that appeared in New Scientist last year (p. 10, 7/10/07 issue): with present technology, it would take the resources of 3 Earths to give everyone a modest European standard of living, even if all the resources were divided equally. Poor people have a powerful incentive to pose as refugees to get into developed countries.

The Migration Watch UK site presents the Home Office figures. For 1997-2004, there were 499,000 asylum claims, not counting dependants. Only about 20% were found to be genuine, even after appeal. The rest only had about a 20% chance of being deported. Once people are out in the community, they can hide with the help of corrupt local employers and officials. Even if they are caught, they cannot be deported if the government cannot prove where they came from (why travel documents are destroyed) or if the home country will not cooperate.

Once the numbers blow out, with a lot of the applicants shown to be fraudulent, plus big social welfare costs and depressed wages for the locals, then we will see the same problems as in Europe: big support for Far Right parties, ethnic hatreds, and possibly even communal violence.

Regardless of any real or imagined deficiencies contained within the new policy framework, it is still infinitely better than the policy it replaces. The brutality, insensitivity, and plain pandering to the 'boofhead' Hansenites endemic to the Howard regime immigration debacle has left a stain on the Australian character and psyche - a stain that Rudd has gone a long way toward redeeming. Long may he and his competent cabinet maintain the rage

Well said, GYM-FISH.

Ludwig and Divergence, haven't you heard? The old fear-mongering doesn't work any more. Even Johnny H and Ruddock concede that.

Spikey,

I have raised some facts and given my sources. When you say that I am fear-mongering, you imply either that I am misrepresenting my sources (which I have given) or that they are wrong. Unfortunately, checking facts is harder than name-calling, but if you want some credibility, you will have to do it.

In this case, as I said, so long as the Indonesians cooperate, nothing much is going to happen. The politicians look noble and humanitarian, but very few asylum seekers arrive by boat to upset the public. Win-win.

It will be interesting to see if the policy changes affect the status of Mr. Al-Kateb.

Remember the guy? The Kuwaiti-born stateless Palestinian who arrived in December 2000, who we locked up in 2004 for the rest of his life? The Howard Govt policy hadn't considered stateless people, and it's solution was to argue at the High Court that, although he had committed no offence in Australia, that we could hold him in detention for the rest of his life. After all, we had the right to protect our borders.

Would Rudd consider using this exceptional case to help wipe the stain of the Pacific Solution from the face of this country?

GYM-FISH, in the absence of a strong policy as implemented by Howard, we would have had a very much larger number of desperate people to deal with from 2001 on.

What do you think would have happened then? An even tougher policy would have been implemented. Humanitarian factors would have even less well respected.

There was no way that a tough policy wasn’t going to be implemented at around about that time or within the following year.

Howard’s big mistake was not putting in place a tough policy considerably earlier, that would have prevented hundreds of people from launching themselves across the world in the hands of people-smugglers.

But then, he might have been hounded out of office if he’d tried it a year earlier. He really needed something significant to react to in order for the public to see the need for a tough policy and by and large support him.

Please note Divergence’s comments above from Migration Watch UK. It would have been sheer madness to have had a non-detention policy. OK, now we can probably get away with it if Indonesia stays onside....maybe.

Divergence

<<I have raised some facts and given my sources.>>

Let's look at what you call 'facts':

<<... Kevin Rudd and the other politicians can posture as great humanitarians at no practical cost.>>

<<I suspect that the policy will be quickly tightened up if conditions change in the future.>>

<<Europe [sic] has given us a lesson on the practical results...>>

<<Poor people have a powerful incentive to pose as refugees to get into developed countries.>>

<<Once people are out in the community, they can hide with the help of corrupt local employers and officials.>>

<<Even if they are caught, they cannot be deported if the government cannot prove where they came from (why travel documents are destroyed) or if the home country will not cooperate.>>

<<Once the numbers blow out, with a lot of the applicants shown to be fraudulent, plus big social welfare costs and depressed wages for the locals, then we will see the same problems as in Europe: big support for Far Right parties, ethnic hatreds, and possibly even communal violence.>>

<<The politicians look noble and humanitarian...>>

These are not facts at all but a series of unsubstantiated assertions and pre-judgments.

To use the UK immigration figures as a comparison is false.

The European Union is an amalgamation of European countries, and over the past years East European countries have joined.

Accordingly citizens of countries who are members of the European Union, have the legal right to entry and residency of the respective member countries.

Over 500,000 former UK subjects of the crown now live in Spain,Many thousands of UK subjects of the crown now live in West and Eastern European countries.

Over past years UK subjects of the crown emigrated to Australia and New Zealand, as economic migrants in search of a better life, should we question their status?

It would seem as long as we take a parochial approach to our being in Australia, we shall be stunted in growth and development, to the loss for all Australians.

BTW. The Euro currency is so strong, the US dollar is trembling!

Fortunately, the Rudd government does not have a majority in the Senate, and needs the votes of both Family First and the SA independent to pass legislation. It will be interesting to see if these members take public opinion into account and vote against any easing of the detention system. I cannot see Rudd calling a double dissolution on the question of illegal immigration.

The author has gone to a lot of trouble to 'put the best light possible' on the policy changes to processing asylum seekers. However little has changed in reality.

The first test will come with the ministers ordered review of the 357 detainees currently held in detention. The majority of these are 'overstayers' that arrived here with valid visas. If they are let into the community while assesment is carried out they may well dissappear again or if they are leniently dealt with, it could mean a dramitic rise in the number of overstayers. Word will quickly spread if a lot of favourable decissions are made for the illegals.

This could well turn out to be the best way for asylum seekers to gain entry. Why pay exhorbanant fares to smugglers when one can fly in by 747 at little cost and be treated favourably.

When the boats start coming again will depend on how the potential asylum seekers view the present governments actions and how soon the dangers of the trip, made obvious by the Siev X, fade.

It is a furphy to say the asylum seekers were/are poor as they are willing to pay outraegous fares to smugglers and tell lies when it suited.

The real poor refugees are those in camps in Africa and elsewhere.

Here we go again.

Australia already has a higher growth through immigration than through natural birth. Most of these come with skills and contribute to the economy.

Those that come illegally have the choice to return or stay in detention. Their choice to remain in detention is thus voluntry.

With hundreds of millions of poor a short boat ride away, the new immigration policy is sure to provide us with a huge surplus of low to to unskilled workers who will undercut Australians and the union movement. Which is probably why the "Howard Policy" was actually put in place by the labor party under Keating.

If this happens, the sentiments will change, and so will labor policy.

Kipp,

The figures I quoted were only for asylum claims. Other legal immigration was in addition to that, and, of course, illegal immigrants don't necessarily claim asylum. People who have claimed asylum in Britain are allowed to bring in immediate family and also parents and grandparents under some circumstances, and these people would be in addition to the 499,000 over that 7 year period. Migration Watch (www.migrationwatchuk) has collected and posted the Home Office figures on the Web. Numbers have been lower recently, due to reductions in global refugee numbers and possibly policy changes by the UK government, but there is nothing to say that they could not go up again in the future.

Spikey,

I did give some opinion, but I note that you don't introduce evidence to dispute the facts it is based on: the intractable nature of global poverty, the large numbers of asylum claims, predominantly ill-founded, in countries that release asylum seekers into the community, and the great difficulty of deporting failed asylum seekers. All of these things are documented on the Migration Watch site. Britain is a good parallel for Australia because it is also surrounded by water and is on the far side of Europe from the home countries of the asylum seekers. If you doubt the possible social effects on the host societies of a vast influx of foreigners, take a look at the recent mob violence in Italy and South Africa, the big votes for anti-immigrant parties in Denmark and Switzerland, and the British government's attempt (twice) to jail Nick Griffin, the head of the (anti-immigrant) British National Party, under truth-is-no-defence religious vilification laws. (He had said some things about Islam that were pretty mild compared to what often appears on OLO.)

Divergence <<I did give some opinion, but I note that you don't introduce evidence to dispute the facts it is based on: the intractable nature of global poverty, the large numbers of asylum claims, predominantly ill-founded, in countries that release asylum seekers into the community, and the great difficulty of deporting failed asylum seekers. All of these things are documented on the Migration Watch site.>>

Some opinion? It was all opinion. The 'facts' you cite are unrelated to the issue and your opinions.

Moreover, Migration Watch is a group whose very existence is based on opposition to asylum seekers in Britain.

This Forum is debating proposals to reform the Australian asylum seeker process including the mandatory detention regime which has been a humanitarian nightmare. Britain's situation - as a member of the EU and a former colonial power - is totally different from Australia's.

I suppose if you shoot off enough loose cannons you reckon one shot might hit the target (so long as you can remember what the target was).

Recent mob violence in Italy and South Africa are related to general social upheaval related to unemployment and vast disparities in economic opportunities.

Big votes for racists in Denmark and Switzerland have nothing at all to do with any influx of asylum seekers (Switzerland! Really!) Tell us about Pauline Hanson whose meteoric rise on the coat tails of fear was less spectacular than her fall. A fizzer!

I fail to see the relevance of Nick Griffin, the head of the white supremacist British National Party. But it's interesting you quote them as source in support of your spurious arguments. The BNP allow no non-whites to be members: "Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent." https://payments.bnp.org.uk/acatalog/memberships.html

It's a throwback to the old skinheads who hero worshipped Enoch Powell and the Nazi Party. A different age, a different country and a different argument.

Spikey,

Migration Watch is quoting the British government's own Home Office figures. The UK government hasn't disputed them, although it might prefer if they were not widely known. You don't just need to show that Migration Watch is opposed to mass migration (an ad hominem argument), you need to show that they have lied about the numbers.

You are implying that I support racist policies of the BNP. I don't. Nevertheless, attempting to jail political opponents, however disagreeable, (and it was thwarted only by the British jury system) is something that is associated more with dictators like Robert Mugabe than with the "Mother of Parliaments". That they would even think of such a thing is indicative of a great deal of social stress.

When I spoke about the mob violence and the like, I said "vast influx of foreigners", not "asylum seekers". From the news reports, the victims of the violence mostly were asylum seekers in South Africa, but probably not in Italy. If there is not enough to go around, then adding more people is unlikely to help. There is also evidence that too much diversity itself can lead to severe social stresses, as Robert Putnam has found

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118510920/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Switzerland has a large proportion of foreign residents.

If very large numbers of people are willing to go through all of Europe and cross the English channel to claim asylum in the UK, why do you think it can't happen here? We clearly don't have enough water for the existing population. How many people can we reasonably take, and what happens when that number is exceeded? How would you deal with people who make asylum claims, not because they are persecuted, but because they want a "better life"? How can you discourage such people from crowding out genuine refugees, when they know it will be next to impossible to deport them? If you don't like Howard's answers, where are yours?

Divergence,

As I said in my last posting (and you ignored) " This Forum is debating proposals to reform the Australian asylum seeker process including the mandatory detention regime which has been a humanitarian nightmare."

So it's of little consequence whether you quote the British old school right (Migration Watch) or the British loony right (the BNP).

You failed to show how Britain relates to Australian asylum seeker policy, you've tried Switzerland, you've tried Italy, you've tried Denmark - all without success. Now you're trying USA, but Putman is of no more relevance to Australian debates on asylum seekers than your other straw men.

You conclude with the only question relevant to this forum: "If you don't like Howard's answers, where are yours?"

My answer is to go back to the current government's proposed reforms. They don't go far enough, but they are miles in front of the disgraced and discarded Howard regime. Come on back into Australia and tell us why these reforms will not work for Australia and refugees seeking asylum in Australia.

Spikey,

You claim that you have exposed all my arguments as straw men. You have not. You have simply asserted, without evidence, that nothing that has happened overseas is at all relevant to Australia, as if we were living in some sort of Magic Kingdom where everything always turns out right. Of course it isn't possible to argue on the basis of Australian evidence, because the Hawke/Keating government introduced mandatory detention, and this has discouraged large numbers from arriving.

In your view, the UK is somehow special because it was a colonial power and belongs to the EU. EU citizens can live and work in other EU countries, but this has nothing to do with asylum. The individual countries make their own decisions on granting asylum. This graph shows total 2001 asylum claims by country. The US and Germany, never big colonial powers, had nearly as many as the UK and more than France, which did have a colonial empire. Austria, Switzerland and the Czech republic also rank high.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_asy_see-immigation-asylum-seekers

You have asserted that only a small number of "racists" are concerned about the issue of immigration numbers. See

http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf

I wouldn't be disturbed by as many as 20,000 refugee admissions a year, provided that they are genuine and given proper settlement services, because they are such a small percentage of our excessively high immigration intake. Any sort of open ended commitment to take in people, however, is profoundly foolish, as is what is effectively open borders for anyone claiming to be a refugee. I put a high value on being humane, but I also put a high value on our environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedoms, and the welfare of our less fortunate fellow citizens.

George

Thanks. I think you as an ALP member and possible future ALP Parliamentarian are too soft on the Rudd Government. The excision retains the Howard policies.

As I wrote in a letter to the Australian, close down all our concentration camps, Senator Evans.

Divergence,

You are not a very careful reader. You claim I have asserted that "nothing that has happened overseas is at all relevant to Australia". I haven't done anything of the sort.

What I've said was that you haven't shown the relevance of what's allegedly happened in the specific nations you introduced - Britain, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark and implicitly the USA - to tghe issue at hand which is the treatment of asylum seekers arriving in Australia.

Then you assert - without evidence - that "it isn't possible to argue on the basis of Australian evidence, because the Hawke/Keating government introduced mandatory detention, and this has discouraged large numbers from arriving". But what is this forum arguing about? Answer: proposals to reform the Australian asylum seeker process including the mandatory detention regime which has been a humanitarian nightmare.

Now can you run it past me again: why we can't use Australian evidence?

Again you side-track into statistics from overseas. And very dated ones too, 2001. (Incidentally Germany was definitely a colonial power - think of the causes of World War 1.)

You distort my position when you claim: "You have asserted that only a small number of "racists" are concerned about the issue of immigration numbers." I have never claimed anything remotely like that. There are lots of people who oppose large-scale immigration. And for lots of different reasons.

This forum is not about immigration, however, but about the treatment of asylum seekers. What I have pointed out in a number of places is that some of the opponents of Australia accepting asylum seekers do so on racist grounds.

The primary purpose of involuntary detention is primarily as a deterrent.

Sentencing someone to 20 yrs for murder is not to rehabilitate them, it is for society to show that there consequences for taking a course of action.

Anyone in immigration detention has the ability to get out immediately if he agrees to return to whence he came.

The illegal immigrants are not nearly as destitute as those that cannot fund their journey. While it is true that where they come from is not wonderful, that applies to about 2 billion people more deserving.

The choice is do we choose who is deserving to come here, or is it thrust upon us.

Shadow Mainister,
Your points seem to be lost with those that support the actions of the boat people.

I am all for bringing a reasonabl ammount of genuine refugees here each year, but strongly object to the invaders that simply turn up and expect us to accept them. Same with overstayers.

Did we not have a number of overstayers, seeking asylum, after the Sydney olympics. Letter this morning in SMH is curious about how many overstayers will there be and if they seek asylum in China.

If they are genuine and fear for their lives back home, there should be some.

Spikey,

You might want to consider the Cornelia Rau case. Rau was a German citizen and a permanent resident of Australia. She was also badly afflicted by schizophrenia. In 1994 she ran away from a mental hospital and was picked several months later in the Northern Territory after some bizarre behaviour. She had no identification other than a stolen Norwegian passport. (She had actually recently been issued with a valid German passport, but had lost it and would not apply for a replacement, since she believed that it would let her family track her and put her back in the mental hospital.) She spoke German and claimed to be German, so ended up in Immigration Dept. detention as a probable backpacker and overstayer who had suffered a psychotic break. She gave a false name and address to the German consular officials. The Australian authorities mishandled the case in a host of ways, but the fact remains that the German consulate washed its hands of someone who may well have been a German citizen and was certainly an ethnic German in serious trouble. See

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cornelia-rau-the-verdict/2005/07/17/11215-38868891.html

Do you seriously imagine that it will play out any differently when it comes to deporting failed asylum seekers who are perfectly sane, have destroyed their travel documents, and are determined to stay in Australia? What deterrent is there other than indefinite detention?

I have presented enough evidence to show a consistent picture. Other developed countries in Europe and North America that didn't have mandatory detention experienced many more asylum claims, a very much higher percentage of claims that could not be substantiated, great problems in removing failed asylum seekers, and social tensions in the host countries when numbers become large. Instead of admitting the problems and finding a more humane solution that will address them, you just want to quibble about details, as if Germany's few colonies before WWI made any difference to asylum claims in 2001 from entirely different places, or as if Migration Watch's viewpoint made any difference to the government statistics they painstakingly reference in their briefing papers.

Divergence,

The first time you resort to Australian evidence to support your assertions you use the Cornelia Rau case which was one of the biggest cock-ups of all time. See the Report of the Former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Palmer who found there were serious and deep-seated problems in the Immigration Department and its handling of people in detention.

Cornelia, suffering from a mental illness, was unlawfully detained, forst by the Queensland police and then by Immigration. She is not a failed asylum seeker. (Your link to the details won't work - try http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/19/2166455.htm)

I don't see how this case lends credibility to your argument against the sorely needed reforms to the refugee process. In fact, it does the opposite. So you'll have to do better than that.

There is hardly a single respectable commentator left in Australia that doesn't acknowledge that the mandatory detention system was a disgrace.

You say <<I have presented enough evidence to show a consistent picture. Other developed countries in Europe and North America that didn't have mandatory detention experienced many more asylum claims...>> etc etc.

But you don't produce the evidence at all. You simply give opinions and beliefs that that's what happens. Let's see a systematic objective study comparing countries that have mandatory detention with those that don't.

Spikey,

You are missing my point about the Rau case. I had said earlier that there could be serious problems in deporting failed asylum seekers who lack valid travel documents. You pooh-poohed this, saying it was merely my opinion. The Rau case provides an example of exactly this sort of thing.

Cornelia Rau had every right to be in Australia, but the Australian Immigration Department didn't know that *and neither did the German Consulate*. The Germans must have had at least a strong suspicion that they were dealing with one of their own citizens, as in fact they were. Nevertheless, they used the lack of identification as an excuse to wash their hands of the situation, taking the attitude that it was up to Australia to prove that Cornelia Rau was a German citizen, not for them to prove that she wasn't. It is irrelevant here that Cornelia Rau wasn't an asylum seeker, as the principle is the same. There is no special deportation procedure for failed asylum seekers as opposed to anyone else. It is also irrelevant that she had a claim on Australia. Germany had a responsibility to her as a mentally ill citizen that was quite apart from any responsibility on the Australian side.

People who arrive in Australia through normal channels sometimes then claim asylum, but such asylum seekers have never been subjected to mandatory detention. This is because they can be "returned to sender" if their claims are not upheld. Airlines and shipping lines are held financially responsible if they bring in people without valid travel documents.

This exchange is like debating evolution with a Creationist: no amount of evidence will ever be enough. Now you want the equivalent of PhD dissertation. If anyone is still bothering to read this, judge for yourselves. Look at the graph I linked to, the well documented Migration Watch briefing papers and the backgrounders on the Center for Immigration Studies site in the US (www.cis.org).

Divergence,

That's a long-winded way of saying you haven't got any evidence relevant to your repeated claims.

A recent poll indicates that most think the refugee level is too high:

Michelle Grattan
August 5, 2008 The Age

A MAJORITY of Australians think the country is taking too many refugees, according to an Essential Research poll.

The poll — which comes in the wake of the Government's announcement last week that it was liberalising mandatory detention policy — also found Australians still retain a hardline attitude towards asylum seekers.

Less than a quarter of respondents (24%) said past policy on asylum seekers had been too tough, while 62% said it had been right or not tough enough.

Those in higher income brackets were more likely to believe the policy had been too tough; those on lower incomes were more inclined to believe it was not tough enough.

Under the Rudd Government's changes to detention policy, unauthorised arrivals will be held for a limited period for identity, health and security checks, but beyond that people will only be detained if they present a risk to the community or have repeatedly absconded.

In the online poll of 1013, people were asked about the increase in Australia's refugee intake to 13,500 annually: 52% said this was too large; a quarter said it was about right; and 6% said it was too small.