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