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.