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