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.