About Howards way, terrorizing australians in line with bushorrism. No wonder australians whilst having everything,in the safest continent in the world, never been attacked, nothing in the world to fear, have been terrorized with lies, racist propaganda and coverups of the truth for seventy years.
We are just waiting for it.. the big um what.. don't know but it's definately coming.. paranoia and howard and his ilk just love it, maybe even believe it.
I would like to see the polls on refugees 'without' the six years of anti refugee propaganda by lil jackboot Johnny.
Our tradition is to lend a hand to anyone! in trouble, is it Howard that has helped destroy ' what it is to be australian?'
No wonder they hide that test from the public, I'm betting ' Barry Jones' would pass it for the rest of us....Oh and..Fidel Castro, he has a photographic memory also.
Rudd is what I fear most, " conservative bureaucrat in a position of immense power" popular elections? get rid of em.
We need some honest people with "no ego" making plans for the future.

Cheers

Didn't Labor introduce the detention system? So they can't really scream too loudly about that terrible dictator Howard (oh, sorry, re-elected how many times?) using it.

Whining about the media using sensationalism in Australia is like complaining about night being dark - it's a fact.

Howard's gone Andrew - get over it already, it sounds like you'll make a career if allowed complaining about it - have you noticed we have a new problem .. the buck stops somewhere but it's not the current leader's fault.

Andrew,
I would have far more respect for what you say if you showed more sympathy for the real refugees. i.e. the poor buggers in various makeshift camps. Instead you and others support those 'illegals' that have funds to travel to Malaysia, thence smuggled into Indonesia and pay smugglers exorbitant fees to get them to Australia. These people are illegal, because one requires a visa to enter Australia and they don't have one.

We have a large tourist industry here and admit thousands of travelers a year, so why do the illegals not seek a visa? Because they, for various reasons, would not qualify and they want to be accepted as refugees so as to obtain our social security benefits. They know they will be found and destroy any documents they have to make it harder for authorities to check the story they spin. The longer they are held the more public sympathy they get and we eventually bend the rules to admit them.

If we are willing to take refugees, we should be particually tough on the illegals and admit more real refugees. If illegals are found to be telling lies, that should immediatly void an application and deported.

You can't be serious in advocating that we freely let the illegals into the community. Look and learn from England, who did this and thousands went underground. These people are subject to exploitation from employers and other unscrupulous persons.

Come on Andrew, detention has far more going for it.

Andrew

I think all Australians are happy that genuine refugees are allowed to come to Australia

You are defending people who have the resources to hire a boat to take them into Australia. If these people have the ability to hire a boat from Malaysia/Indonesia, they have the ability to use the official channel to apply for immigration into Australia, all these people are doing is jumping the queue and using an illegal means to bypass other people to get into Australia.

These people are by passing genuine refugees as well

We should do all we can do to discourage these people from coming to Australia

I suggest perhaps only a minority of the public thinks that arriving in Australia without prior approval constitutes 'doing nothing wrong'. Particularly when that person may have passed through several other politically stable countries before applying for refuge in Australia. I suggest if their circumstances are as dire as they claim then a period of incarceration is a small price to pay. At least until their bona fides are assessed.

Further to that I'll make a long range prediction that Rudd's unannounced high immigration policy will backfire. Some have suggested that the combination of skilled migration, refugees, 'guest workers' and relatives could exceed 300,000 people a year. Australia's population might rise to 30 million well before mid century. I suggest new arrivals bring their own water supply and suburban land. Things might also get a bit difficult when the mining boom fizzles and the native born drift back to the cities.

dovif2 and banjo make sense whilst the hysterical handwringing anti-Australia snivellers love to keep up the lament about how inhumane John howard and others who worked so hard to keep Australia safe are.They DO NOT want to acknowledge where the real refugees are to be found.All you weeping buggers need to re-read banjo and dovif2 articles AGAIN please.

socratease

neilium,
The intention of your post may have been to write a worthwhile comment, but its execution is abysmal. If you wish people to read and UNDERSTAND your comments, then learn a little about punctuation and spelling. A sloppy writer husbands a sloppy mind.

So what if the public do notice? We have populists in power, not leaders. Nothing can happen unless people change their minds about these two political parties. We could spend decades gathering crumbs like pigeons rather than living like stallions/mares in open fields.

First I must apologize for my lack of grammatical expertise to one commenter.

What I'm seeing in comments, is that some seem to be confused over what a refugee is.
The fact that some people can find the means to get to australia by sea, rather than be caught up in some 'imaginary' refugee camp, does not detract from their status as a refugee, if they had twenty million dollars or nothing, it makes no difference. Do you think people "escaping" from their own country will be offered air travel.. wake up please!
the second point. The snowy river hydro scheme.. would still be being built if not for REFUGEES.. in fact I'l bet some of you came here by ship escaping your country of origin from fear for your life, the only difference is that australia at that time was cajouled into taking refugees by it's allies, and thank christ we did, our country is a far better place now that it's not all irish convicts, british soldiers and blue blood offcasts.
Refugee camps, there are many, in countries that do not have the wealth of money and compassion to deal with this problem in a humane way, and I notice no campaign mentioned by any commenters to get those people out of them.. where.. well here of course, are we not importing workers right now to do our dirty work?.
Cheers.

neillium

Surely you are not suggesting that we let rich refugees into the country and let poor refugees stay in refugee camp.

Lets say Australia has a limit of 10,000 refugee a year, if we let 10,000 refugee came here by boat, we would only be accepting refugee that has money, while the poor refugees get left in a camp.

If these refugee are well off and they want to come to Australia, let them apply from the country that accepted them

I have a strong disagreement with the premise that if you are poor, you end up in Vietnam and Indonesia, but if you are rich, you can pay someone to get you to Australia. By allowing them to come to Australia, that is exactly what we would be doing

It would also stop the market for these illegal boat operators, who risks the lives of the refugees, just to make money

Banjo, dovif2, Taswegian and socratease repeat the same tired and inaccurate distortions about who is a 'real' refugee. The facts are simple - the refugees who arrived by boat have been found to be refugees by our own laws which (mostly) reflect the Refugee Convention, the same as those refugees who are brought in through Australia's offshore humanitarian program. The notion that somehow those refugees who arrive here by boat are not 'real' or 'genuine' refugees is just a smear. There is no 'queue' and it is not 'illegal'. Repeating falsehoods does not make them any less wrong.

And as well as there being no 'queue', those offshore refugees Australia brings here are not selected solely on the grounds of most need. Humanitarian need is a factor, but far from the only one. Indeed, a significant component of our humanitarian intake have to be sponsored to come here and have to find someone who will cover the costs of their airfares.

As for "Rudd's unannounced high immigration policy", its a different issue, but it is hardly unannounced - it has been openly released and talked about by the government. Indeed the new Minister has drawn much more attention to it, the fact that it will inevitably remain at high levels for the forseeable future and the need to have wider public debate about that - he's made much more of a point of trying to get more examination of the substance and operation of the whole immigration system than previous Ministers did.

It would be good to have a serious debate in Australia about substantive migration issues, rather than inaccurate fear-mongering about a small number of boat people who even at the highest numbers comprised a tiny fraction of the numbers of people coming into the country.

Andrew,
There is at least one thing I would gree with you on and that is, " it would be a good time to have a serious debate about substantive immigration issues". In fact it is well beyond time this was done, particularly as the numbes have been ever increasing and our infastructure appears wanting. The problem here is that the two major parties have agreed not to publicly debate the issues.

I say the boat people are not 'real refugees' because they have traveled over a number of countries where their safety was not a question, with the direct object of getting to Aus. That alone disqualifies them as being refugees. I have heard the arguement that many other countries are not signatories to a UN convention as we are. However there are many countries that are signatories to that convention, which are much closer to their homeland than Aus.

The fact is these people are using their wealth to buy their way here and forcing themselves on us. We were taught to wait our turn in shops, banks and so on. Waiting our turn is part of our culture and the boat people violate that convention of ours. They are not the poor soles they are made out to be. The real poor are in the camps and we should give precedence to them.

If the boat people were fair dinkem they would present themselves to one of our offices and put up their own funds for air fares.

There really has not been much change to the policy on 'illegal immigrants' and it will be interesting to see what happens when the next boat arrives. If we are not going to detain the kids, do we seperate them, from their parents or let them all out to dissappear underground.

Who, may I ask - would believe the credibility of defrocked Parliamentarian, reformed alcoholic, common thief ? That he crashed a 2003 Liberal Xmas barbecue, ingratiated himself and was spotted sequestering 5 bottles of vino, not only brought humiliation to his Democrat colleagues, he indignantly swore, manhandled and abused Liberal Jeannie Ferris on the floor of Parliament for ratting on him ! Captured on camera, he at first denied, then profusely apologized. Drawing $ 127,000 base pay, and over $ 60,000 in electoral/travel/car allowances, and a Life Gold Pass, one wonders at the shenanigans our Pollies resort to, given half the chance.

The irreverent Democrats were decimated 2007 Elections, scoring an abysmal 1.88 % of the primary vote.

Andrew's pique center's on Aust Immigration debate - a festering sore JWH skillfully manipulated to win Office, twice. In the main, it appealed to the xenophobic, disfranchised and neo-conservatives who couldn't and still can't believe Asylum seekers are only seeking welfare payments, and an idyllic lifestyle in the Utopian Sun.

Bungles & Hiccups: there are 25,000 illegal workers and visitors on everyday visas living in the community. Oz Audit Office Report 07: 60,000 visa overstays; 21,500 non citizens on invalid visas. Actual fact, the bureaucrats haven't a clue how many have gone bush. So lackadaisical, inept they resorted to ABS for assistance to fudge figures.

Incidentally, the ABS's modus operandi envisages; ' statistical modeling; seasonally adjustments, mathematical probability, pyramid displacement etc. In essence, it's dart-board bull's eye science. AAO, the Nation's watchdog, in a damning report condemned the practice of: tip-offs, dob-a-stranger, crime stoppers etc initially hailed as a significant source of intelligence/policing being surreptitiously pigeonholed. So much for Border security, stranger danger, and multitude of anti-terrorism measures Howard supposedly implemented at great cost.

Bloopers under DIMIA's Amanda Vanstone's watch, include failures to identify dinky-di ex Qantas hostie Cornelia Rau, who was treated abominably at Baxter detention Gulag. Vivian Alverez Salon, deported to the Philippines and accidentally recognized by a visiting nun, and rightfully granted citizen status; Robert Jovick, deported to Belgrade although born in Footscray. Melbourne. Notorious medico

Mohamed Haneef, incarcerated. His good character pusillanimously maligned and made a scapegoat by Kevin Andrews and AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty. His reputation impugned, sacked by Qld Health, he voluntarily left the Country on his own accord. Two years after his trial-by-media AFP fictitiously blamed Scotland Yard for the bungle even though they had two experienced Officer's stationed in London at the time.Even now, they relentlessly scrutinise his past in India with a fine tooth-comb, and in the UK, to justify their shameless waste of taxpayer's funds, last estimated at $ 2.3 million. The systematic failures are flagitiously awesome. Tellingly, the debacle doesn't end there. Huge compensation payouts will rest like a albatross on the Nation's much vaunted surplus budget. Internationally, the monetary fallout is chickenfeed compared to incalculable harm to Aust's reputation of fair-mindedness and Christian charity.

Chris Evans has accomplished more in his short tenure then anything Vanstone/Andrews in 11 years of sloth and bloody-mindedness. Upgrading, closing detention centers on/offshore, injecting much needed funds into the ailing system. Fast tracking 13,500 refugee applications,granting 13,014 humanitarian visas. Working tirelessly with the Commonwealth Ombudsman, eliminating bureaucratic red tape, professional migrant agencies, ghoul's prying on pathetic illiterates etc.

JWH's Pacific Solution - reminiscent of Hitler's Jewish Final Solution, at a cost of $ 220 M incarcerated families in Nauru, Manus, Christmas Islands in appalling third world razor-wired camps. This punitive Policy of excision of asylum seekers in remote Pacific atolls,is now recognized as inhuman,retrograde and counter-productive. Women and children would no longer be kept in isolation and separation from spouses. Facilities are available for children in Aust.Evan's abolished Temporary Protection Visas. UNHRC - the International body on Human Rights brought 14 adverse findings against Aust. Howard refused to allow delegates entry, even though we are signatories to 1951 Convention Relating to State of Refugees and 1967 Protocols Convention Governing Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems.

UNHCR - Refugee Agency cares for 25.1 million refugees and displaced persons. Many destitute from Iraq and Afghanistan shock-an-awe conflagration.

Austcare, Caritas, Jesuit Refugee Services, Oxfam etc are some of the Agencies administering to their plight and welfare.

Banjo said " I say the boat people are not 'real refugees' because they have traveled over a number of countries where their safety was not a question, with the direct object of getting to Aus. That alone disqualifies them as being refugees."

No, it doesn't disqualify them at all, either under the Refugee Convention or Australian law.

As for people "disappearing underground", even during the Howard era, many asylum seekers were actually let out of detention at various types at the discretion of the Minister while their refugee claims were still being finalised. Some specific visas were even created for this purpose. Not one of them "disappeared underground". Neither is their a record of people disappearing among the many other asylum seekers who have always been able to live in the community (although often while qualifying for no assistance) while their claims have been assessed.

dalma - I realise cheap shots at politicians is an obigatory way of trying to dismiss their arguments, but I'm not sure why you felt the need to launch such smears of me when you then go on to write a wide-ranging assessment which basically agrees with mine (apart from your over the top comparison of Howard to Hitler). In any case, apart from correctly noting the Democrats dismal 2007 performance (even worse than the 2004 performance when I was Leader), your smears are mostly inaccurate or exaggerations.

Andrew,there's nowhere to hide the fact that as a parliamentarian and as one belonging to a benighted political party you were irrelevant as have been the arguments you have taken the trouble to post.Give it away,pal.osters are too wise for you to get away with anything

socratease

A stunningly incisive riposte socratease

- it doesn't say much about you if you spend your time responding to people you suggest are 'irrelevant', particularly if all you can do is throw mud rather than engage with the facts.

The arguments I'm putting forward here are consistent with those which were argued by myself and a number of others over many years. The fact that the political tide started turning a few years ago in response to those arguments does not in itself mean those arguments were and are right, but it certainly means they're not irrelevant.

In order to support any sort of open-ended commitment to take in people, you would have to either believe that there are no limits to growth, either on the global or the national scale, or that they are so far in the future that we can ignore them. Never mind the statistics from, say, the Worldwatch Institute on shortages or losses of arable land, fresh water, biodiversity, fish stocks, minerals that are vital to our technology, and capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes.

Despite our serious water problems, our politicians are adding a million people to the population every three years. It seems that any shortfalls will be accommodated by sacrificing the environment and reducing the personal freedom and quality of life of ordinary people, who are already being priced out of detached housing with gardens. This won't apply to the politicians, of course, with their generous benefits. The people silos are only for the proles.

Senator Bartlett may assure us that asylum seeker numbers will never be large, but the facts from Europe and the US say otherwise. Likewise when refugee advocates scoff about the existence of fraudulent asylum claims or the difficulty of removing failed asylum seekers with no travel documents. See Briefing Paper 9.14 on the Migration Watch UK site (www.migrationwatchuk.org), where the numbers are referenced to the original British government documents. The UK got 499,000 asylum claims from 1997-2004, not counting dependants. (Asylum seekers are allowed to bring in spouses, children, and sometimes parents and grandparents.) 113,00 (23%) were accepted as refugees, including after appeal. 72,000 (14%) were granted exceptional leave to remain, sometimes for humanitarian reasons, but usually because it was practically impossible to deport them (see Briefing Paper 9.4). 63% (314,000) were completely rejected, but only 75,000 were removed. Germany got 430,000 claims in 1992 alone. Numbers have fallen off since, but Europe has also adopted tougher policies. See

http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/back500.html

by Prof. David Martin, which also discusses the US situation.

It's true. While asylum seekers should be treated decently, it's a mere distraction to the greater problems facing us with our current generation of politicians who are obsessed with increasing control and high-fiving each other over playing populist.

Some interesting issues you raise there Divergence, many of which I have responded to in the past.

However, they have nothing to do with the article I have written here, which was about Labor's policy changes in the area of immigration detention.

This has no relation to global population levels, let alone the size of Australia's migration intake.

2/9/09

Andrew:

I have been following this debate with abated breath, and it is becoming increasingly obvious, you are digging a chasm for yourself, and your erstwhile ex colleagues in the Senate.

My thoughts:
Why bother to defend the indefensible ? Shop lifting is a crime, but in the confines of the Parliament of Australia, it's a mental aberration - literally. Two-thirds have their snouts in the trough, so if the majority are party to the subversion of Criminal Law, it makes it acceptable. Here's the pinch - the great devide. One Law for the Elitist, another for the hoi polloi !

Ronald Reagan: " Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realise that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."

Robert Strauss: " If you're in Politics, you're a whore anyhow. It dosen't make any difference who you sleep with."

What a sad reflection of the times.

Shame.

The Australian Refugee Convention does not possess a mortgage on political wisdom or accrucasy,Andrew,nor do you.

The fact remains that any refugee who is a genuine refugee seeks refuge as near a refuge as possible and to get there ASAP.The refugees that came to Australia wsent sublimely past the nearest refuges available EVEN THOSE WHERE THE CULTURES AND RELIGION WAS THE SAME!!
Hello!
They took the longest route to their chosen refuge.It would have been cheaper and safer to arrive at a more fasmiliar and safe refuge nearer the place from they were uprooted dont you think.Or is the reasoning I have put forward also "IRRELEVANT"?
So why did they come to Australia and not to some other neatrer refuges places like Sri Lanka or Malaysia or INdonesia?
And dont say because they wanted to.

Could they have stortmed the Japanese Embasy or Consulate and asked for asylum?Or China? Or Korea? What was so undesirable with Bahrain,Kuwait or any other Emirate?
Ever thought of that?The Australian Refugee Convention found the answer too hard to face. ( naive buggers!)

Whoever the refugee advocates may be I wonder if they ever considered or still consider the options I have touched on.

socratease

socratease said "The Australian Refugee Convention does not possess a mortgage on political wisdom or accrucasy,Andrew,nor do you."

I don't believe I have ever claimed to have a mortgage on political wisdom or accrucasy (sic), socratease. However, it is a simple fact that a refugee who travels through a number of countries to reach one where they can claim secure refuge is still a refugee, according to both Australian law and the Refugee Convention.

There is no such thing as the "Australian Refugee Convention". There is an international Convention, adopted in the aftermath of World War II when nations saw what could happen to people denied the chance to obtain safe haven. It is not compulsory for nations to sign this Convention or the later Protocol updating it, but Australia has and has also (mostly) incorporated it specifically into Australian law.

It is true that many refugees stay close to the country they fled from, but in many if not most cases that does not provide them with safety from being returned to danger. The countries you name, such as Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Indonesia are not signatories to the Refugee Convention and thus do not provide a haven against being returned to danger for a refugee who seeks it. Many refugees - far more than have ever tried to come to Australia - none the less reside in countries such as these in a state of insecurity.

These questions are not simple or easy, but you are incorrect in your suggestion that they have never been considered.

Jacinta: Expressing my views on this topic has nothing to do with any of my ex colleagues in the Senate. I don't know if you are actually trying to make a point, or just enjoying yourself engaging in a few tired cheap slurs against all politicians. Many politicians are not immune to a bit of name-calling themselves of course, but for all their faults, most of them do a better job them you seem to be able to in engaging at least in passing with the topic being discussed.

Some background to asylum seekers' journeys 1999-2001.
Iran in the 1990s was commended by the UN for hosting over a million refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq. By 1999 with little support from elsewhere, Iran changed policy and set measures in place to get the Afghans and Iraqis to leave - some had lived there for almost twenty years since the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. This was one factor in Afghans and Iraqis seeking safety elsewhere.

Syria and Jordan as Iraq's neighbours were unsafe as Saddam's people operated in those countries. Although Iraqis being Arab nationals could get visas on arrival for both countries, the visas expired after 3 months. They were then there illegally and had no work rights so couldn't survive. If picked up by authorities they could be deported back to Iraq. Many had used people smugglers to get out of Iraq. Leaving Iraq without an exit visa before 2003 was illegal so if they were returned they would be punished on that basis alone, and usually they fled in the first place because Saddam's security forces had targeted them. So deportation back to Iraq was a death sentence.

Although easy to enter Malaysia, Iraqis were granted 3 week visas, no work rights. If they overstayed, they were subject to flogging, fines, detention and deportation.

In Indonesia if they overstayed their short term visas which did not allow them to work, the asylum seekers were locked up in immigration detention. I've spoken to many asylum seekers who were locked up in Indonesia immigration detention, some for years.

That was why they wanted to come to Australia - as a western democratic country, they thought they would be safe.

Senator Bartlett,

Limits to growth would indeed be irrelevant if we were only going to get a few thousand asylum seekers a year, say up to 20,000. In that case, I suspect that nearly all of us on the other side would only want to wish them luck. The real issue is those 1990s European style numbers, in case Indonesia can't or won't stop asylum seekers from passing through its territory, especially since you have rejected current European tactics, such as temporary protection visas and refusing to entertain claims where people have passed through safe third countries.

On the global level, as population growth butts up against the limits, there will be many millions of people desperate to escape poverty and many more genuine refugees, as competing ethnic groups fight it out over inadequate piles of resources.

In most of southeastern Australia, more than 75% of the available water is already being diverted for human purposes (see map in cover story of last week's New Scientist). Wetlands in the lower Murray Valley are being allowed to dry out because "people are more important than wildlife", as John Howard said last year. The Queensland government is building a dam on the habitat of three endangered species to accommodate population growth. There are permanent water restrictions in almost all of our cities, with people encouraged to spy on their neighbours. These have caused more than a billion dollars in damage, due to such things as cracks opening up in buildings when the soil around the foundations dries out and elderly people injuring themselves carrying heavy buckets of water to gardens. Desalination plants are going to be built up and down the coasts, despite the immense energy costs of purifying the water and pumping it uphill to where it is needed. Your solution is to double the population, even apart from the asylum seeker issue. Responsible leaders, unlike the reckless growthists, environmental vandals, and corporate toadies we have now, would have long since started moving us towards a steady state economy and a stable population.

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

To have credibility, you need to address an environmentally and socially responsible upper limit to the number of claims, discouraging arrival in leaky boats, proper settlement services, how to deal with economic migrants posing as refugees, and how to remove failed asylum seekers when the home country can't be conclusively identified or won't cooperate.

Get a grip peoples. A person can’t be both a refugee AND an “illegal”, which none of you have cared to define. The word has a nice ring to it though.

There is no ‘queue’. In countries in Africa and Middle East rife with ethnic and religious persecution, corruption and faltering societies whence most of our refugees originate, Australia does not have a nice little embassy with an orderly queue outside, Monday to Friday nine to five. Many of these places don’t even have a functioning government. Haven’t we had this debate before?

As a signatory to numerous conventions and treaties concerning refugees Australia is bound to accept and consider those seeking asylum. Once a person is deemed ineligible for refugee status but still conspires to stay in the country, then they’re here illegally.

By your and other’s reasoning the majority of “illegals” here today are white, wealthy, have left stable employment behind and have a safe and secure environment back home. This current thread is a remnant of Howard's politically calculated campaign of fear and loathing, starting with the subjugation of Pauline Hanson’s policies and ending with the Haneef debacle. Rau and Alvarez were mere speedbumps along the way.

Immigration officials admitted following the last election they were under political pressure to go hard on asylum seekers against their own better judgement and conscience, not to mention official government policy. And though Labor introduced mandatory detention there were never any cases of sewn lips, psychological torture, or even any front pages beyond the initial political ramifications.

John Stone famously described his own party as “mean and tricky”. It may rankle that Howard has disappeared ignominiously into a hole but that’s where he, his policies and his legacies belong

+If Andrew and his supporters dont already know why let me try and enlighten them about the main reason why we need to have a very very efficient and effective screening process to keep Australia safe from maurading jihardists.I make no secret of my fear and hate of them.Its true I am villifying them.They are villains as are any who seek to destroy Australia and its social structures.Why mince words or sound apologetic about my feelings.

When Syria admitted PLO refugees the Muslim Brotherhood slipped in with the genuine cases.They began attacking and ambushing government forces till Syria cracked down on them and wiped out over 10,000 after the attack on Hama in the 1980's.
Jordan also opened its borders to over 100,000 refugees.Soon after the PLO tried to assassinate the King and the royal family andwould have succeeded had not the Hashemite bedoin tribesmen not ridden into Aman and dsestroyed them.Now the refugees even though they may be genuine refugees can only get 3 month visas after they have to leave.

The refugees have also made trouble in Indonesis and Malaysia all of whom now will only offer 3 month visas to them also.So what do we do? They get permanent status no sooner do they get here.We have yet to experience their "gratitude" I suppose but the trial taking place in Sydney and Melbourne of jihardists who planned the massacre of thousands shows that the threat is not imagined as Bartlet andhis do-gooders would have us believe. I'm being an alarmist am I ? A racist? Anything else? Thanks.

socratease

Well socratease, regardless of anything else, I'd say you're being deliberately inflammatory - usually a good guide that accuracy is also in short supply.

But its helpful that you have been honest enough to openly admit to engaging in vilification.

Your attempts to link asylum sekers coming to Australia with "jihadists" is an extreme and unfounded smear, but as you say, "Its true I am villifying them", so its to be expected.

Given you openly admit to hatred of the refugees, I don't expect you to see reason, but that doesn't change the fact that most of the refugees locked up for years during the Howard era were fleeing terrorism and tyranny from people you would probably label as 'jihadists'.

For anyone actually interested in the facts, we already have a "very very efficient and effective screening process" of all asylum seekers. Well over a million people enter Australia every year - NONE of them have a security assessment as thorough as what is applied to asylum seekers who arrive by boat.

Vilify and smear and run your alarmist rhetoric all you like - it is still without foundation, and it is still destructive to both innocent humans and to Australia's social and legal fabric.

As for Divergence's comments, the impacts of global population growth have nothing to do with locking up asylum seekers for years while their claims are assessed. As my article noted, mandaotry detention didn't act as a dampener on the number of boat arrivals anyway.

As for your final comment that

"To have credibility, you need to address an environmentally and socially responsible upper limit to the number of claims, discouraging arrival in leaky boats, proper settlement services, how to deal with economic migrants posing as refugees, and how to remove failed asylum seekers when the home country can't be conclusively identified or won't cooperate"

I've addressed those many times - which you either know and prefer to ignore, or are incapable of comprehending, in which case there's not much point my repeating them to you again.

Andrew I can see why no one really wants you to reoresents them in Parliament.You cannot represent the truth as we see it.
For a start why not ask people in Amman,Damascus and cairo about what you condemn as jihardist rhetoric as if it didnt contain some alarming truth.But truth isnt what you are about,is it?

Where did I say I hated ALL refugees? No Andy,only those who are jihardists and who want to hurt us.Really,Andrew, if this were parliament you would have been howled down for deliberating misquoting what was said.But being howled down wassomething you must have got used to.
Come on, Andy,you must lift your game.You are losing the plot,old man.

socratease

Get over it socretease - your name calling and refusal to engage even remotely with the topic at hand is even more juvenile than what is served up in the Parliament, and that's saying something.

The benefit of these sorts of forums is that people can read comment and decide for themselves.

As I have repeatedly said, my article is about changes to mandatory detention. There is no evidence that mandatory detention reduced boat arrivals of asylum seekers in Australia, and there is clear cut evidence that not a single one of those who did arrive was linked to any type of terrorism, as every one of them received a security clearance from ASIO.

There are genuine and difficult issues to consider in how best to deal with the large flows of asylum seekers around the world. But if the best you can do with the issue is to try to smear refugees who have arrived in Australia with unrelated comments about 'jihadists' (with a few schoolyard sandpit taunts thrown in), then don't expect to be taken seriously.

Senator Bartlett,

You asserted that mandatory detention made no difference to boat arrivals, but didn't offer any evidence. According to the (2005) Parliamentary Library e-briefing linked to below, mandatory detention was introduced by the Labor government in 1992, according to Gerry Hand, the Immigration Minister, to "facilitate the processing of refugee claims, prevent de-facto immigration, and save the cost of locating people in the community". The government at the time was very concerned about what was happening in Europe. It is unlikely that an expensive policy that didn't work would have been continued for years. I'm not aware that Labor tried to use it for political point-scoring.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/asylum_seekers.htm

There were 9600 asylum claims in Australia over the 1999-2001 period. Of these, 660 were removed and 190 detained because appeal was exhausted and the claimants refused to leave. In other words, 91% were genuine refugees. In Britain over the 1997-2004 period, only 23% were accepted as genuine. They would have only had an average of 14,000 claims a year instead of 62,000, if only the genuine ones came. Where would you prefer to make a dubious claim? In Australia, where you would quite likely just be detained, or in the UK, where you could live in the community, bring in your family, and only have a 20% chance of deportation, even if your appeal was rejected?

You may have addressed the issues I mentioned elsewhere, but I haven't seen you do so on OLO. I don't follow everything you write. As for my comprehension, I have a first class honours degree in Physics. If I can gain some understanding of Fourier transforms, complex analysis, or quantum mechanics, I probably wouldn't be bothered by anything you write.

These are the figures for unauthorised boat arrivals by calendar year for years before and after the introduction of mandatory detention in the early 1990s.They clearly show that detention was ineffective as a deterrent.


........boats...passengers
1987......0......... 0
1988......0......... 0
1989......1........ 26
1990..... 2....... 198
1991..... 6....... 213
1992..... 6....... 215
1993..... 3........ 81
1994.... 18....... 953
1995..... 7....... 237
1996.... 19....... 611
1997.... 11....... 338
1998.... 17....... 200
1999.... 86...... 3936
2000.... 51...... 2926
2001.... 46...... 6341 (includes SIEVs that did not make it to the mainland)

The source document is Fact sheet 74A produced by Immigration Department and available at http://www.sievx.com/articles/psdp/DIMIA74a_boatarrivals.pdf

Sue Hoffman,

You have shown that the number of asylum seekers arriving by boat (which wouldn't include all asylum seekers) went up after mandatory detention was introduced. You haven't shown that they wouldn't have gone up much more without it. The figures I just quoted were from the Parliamentary Library document I linked to in the same post. As you can see, if you look at the Migration Watch briefing paper that I referenced in an earlier post, the proportion of genuine claims was very much higher in Australia than in the UK. It makes sense to assume that most genuine refugees would not be deterred by mandatory detention. They know that they can show their bona fides and will be out of detention and in the community within two or three months.

Socratease,

There have been cases of asylum seekers who were involved in Islamic terrorism overseas, although it is rare. One example is Dr. Mohammed Asha, who was a key player in the 2007 doctor's plot terrorist incident in the UK (the same one for which the innocent Dr. Haneef was picked up here, essentially for being distantly related to a terrorist).

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22002108-5001021,00.html

To do away with detention would be to do away with customs, invited guests only please. I can't understand the sort of person that would allow immigration in that manner. Boat people are no more than invaders.
Just as well the aborigines didn't have any rules when you arrived.

Hi Divergence

To make a few points, apart from the period 1999 to 2001 there have always been more asylum seekers arriving in Australia by air than by boat. The air arrivals, as they usually come with tourist or student visas are not locked up. In other words, only some asylum seekers are subject to mandatory detention and that is the unauthorised boat arrivals - those more likely to be found to have genuine refugee claims.

Only about 20% (I think) of air arrivals are found to be genuine refugees. So despite the fact they are far less likely to be granted refugee visas, they remain in the community while their claims are processed.

None of us can prove what would have happened if mandatory detention was not introudced but based on the figures I provided (plus I've asked loads of asylum seekers this very question) mandatory detention was not a deterrent.

As you say " makes sense to assume that most genuine refugees would not be deterred by mandatory detention." Except - in reference to your next comment - they were not detained for only for two or three months; these were the people who were detained for years, some in excess of five years.

Sue Hoffman,

The distinction between air and irregular boat arrival is that people who arrive by air or regular shipping lines have valid travel documents. The airline or shipping line will be held financially responsible if they don't. They can therefore be "returned to sender" if their claims are not upheld. The people who arrive in the fishing boats often don't have valid documents or have destroyed them. It is difficult or impossible to deport them if their asylum claims fail. Mandatory detention prevents failed asylum seekers, i.e. illegal immigrants, from enjoying the fruits of our inability to deport them. Philip Ruddock used to claim that 80% of asylum seekers were getting a primary decision within 90 days, and from recently reported figures, it is currently more than 70%. No doubt the bureaucrats get it wrong sometimes, but it is very much the exception for people to be detained for years. Often it is because their claim has failed, and they refuse to leave Australia. See the Parliamentary Library briefing paper that I linked to.

Timothy J. Hatton of the ANU has written about how asylum claims snowballed in Europe. Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers know that they are likely to need a support network in the host country, so prefer to go to places where there is already a community of their fellow countrymen. The first asylum seekers from Ruritania are likely to be genuine refugees and pretty desperate. Once that Ruritanian community exists in Australia, however, it acts as a magnet for more Ruritanians, who are not necessarily refugees. This is especially true for the friends and relatives of the people who are here already. The fact that our asylum seeker numbers stayed so very small compared to Europe and the US and that such a relatively high proportion remained genuine is pretty good evidence of a deterrent effect against people without a strong case for asylum.

It is refreshing that you are willing to debate this on a rational level.

Hi Divergence

You raise many points, too many to cover in one post.

Airlines only get fined and have to take someone back to their point of departure if the person is stopped by Immigration on arrival because papers are not in order. Once a person is in the country, if they then claim asylum, and that claim fails, the airline is not held responsible or expected to return them.

One of the arguments given for mandatory detention is that people are available to be deported if their asylum claims fail; that is, they can’t lose themselves in the community. But this rationale is not applied to the far greater number of people (apart from the 1999-2001 period) who arrive by air with visas then claim asylum even though most of this group fail in their asylum claims. The boat arrivals are more likely to be found to be genuine refugees, hence less likely to be deported yet it’s the boat arrivals who are treated more harshly and locked up. If locking people up isn’t necessary for air arrivals why is it for boat arrivals? The answer is, it isn’t necessary, its just punitive.

The numbers of people who cannot be deported because they are stateless or their countries of origin refuse to accept them are very very small. And when this happens, given there is nowhere to send them what do you do? Lock them up for life? While Australian law currently allows this, it’s hardly humane. Of the approx 10,000 boat arrivals 1999-2001, 90% got visas. 1,000 didn’t. Maybe 20 were stateless, I’m not sure of the stats. Even if there were 100 stateless persons who failed their refugee applications, is this justification for locking up the 10,000, 90% plus of whom got visas based on their protection needs.

You might want to look at submissions to the current inquiry into detention. Submission 13 is from a former Immigration officer who describes how the system deteriorated from the late 1990s. Submission 128 is from a couple of torture trauma counsellors who treated people in and after detention. http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/detention/subs.ht

Concerning Philip Ruddock’s claim that 80% of asylum seekers were getting a primary decision within 90 days, what this statistic hides is that people were held for long periods (the longest I’m aware of is eleven months) before being interviewed about their refugee claim. It was at this point they were deemed to have lodged their application, and the 90 days kicked in. The system is different now.

I would dispute by the way, the use of the term ‘illegal immigrants’ in this context. It is not an illegal act to arrive without a visa and ask for asylum. It does not contravene any Australian laws to do that; to the contrary the Migration Act accommodates it by setting out processes to be followed.

While I accept many of your comments re snowballing and chain migration in Europe, the situation for Australia has always been different because of Australia's location especially it’s relative isolation from the rest of the world. There’s no doubt this is the single major factor in why Australia has had so few asylum seekers arrive. Divergence, we may never agree on this but mandatory detention made no difference whatsoever and the other major policy initiative to deter asylum seekers – temporary protection visas - actually encouraged greater numbers of asylum seekers. It was when the boats were intercepted and turned around that they stopped coming.

In the 1990s Europe began erecting various barriers to block legitimate channels for seeking asylum. These were successful in the short term but triggered a growth in people-smuggling syndicates and then numbers started to increase again. A similar situation happened with Australia in 1999.

No-one knows what would have happened if different decisions had been made in the past. When people’s lives are at risk and they are desperate, they do what they can to better their situation and find a safe place. Its human nature, and I’m pretty sure I’d do the same.

Over to you…

Sue Hoffman,

Sorry, but your link doesn't work.

My point about the airlines was not that the airline would have to ship a failed asylum seeker back, but that his name, passport number, etc. are all on record. It is then more difficult for the home country to disclaim responsibility.

This link to another Parliamentary Library briefing paper has some statistics that are relevant to this debate

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm

People have a right to claim asylum without a visa, so that doesn't make them illegal immigrants, but it is a fair description of an economic migrant posing as a refugee. From the briefing paper: "The UNHCR acknowledged that by the early 1990s the vast majority of asylum seekers in Western countries were economic migrants."

Australia does have the advantage of no land borders, but getting here is hardly high tech. Some West Papuans did it in a dugout canoe. The real issue is whether the Indonesians will go on blocking passage of asylum seekers through their territory. If they do, numbers will remain small. If relations break down, they might facilitate movements of asylum seekers to put pressure on Australia, and we might indeed start to see some of those European numbers.

Until a secret agreement was made with the Australian government, Iran, one of the main sources of asylum seekers, was refusing to cooperate with deportations of failed asylum seekers. See

http://assembly.uca.org.au/resources/media_releases/uniting_church_condemns_iran_agreement

I agree about the injustice of detaining people for a year before allowing them to claim asylum.

Hi Devergence

The correct link for the 128 submissions to the current inquiry into detention is http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/detention/subs.htm

no 13 is from a former immigration officer who worked inside detention centres

Sue