Ludwig: << even in the absence of an escalation in numbers, continued arrivals would surely have led to increased civil unrest and a very strong demand that the government do something decisive about it >>

Why would this necessarily have been the case? I don't recall much in the way of "civil unrest" during the days of the Vietnamese 'boat people'. I think that most of the racist and xenophobic discourse in Australia during the late 1990s was a direct product of the Howard government's scurrilous manipulation of the electorate in its quest to wrest back voters from One Nation. "Border protection" is a classic jingostic trope that they deployed in order to appear strong and patriotic in the face of a largely confected perceived threat.

In terms of numbers, as I've said before I think that Australia can accommodate many more refugees than we currently do, simply by reducing the number of economic immigrants that are currently permitted. I'd have no problem with replacing all of them with bona fide refugees from anywhere. And yes, I'd support an expansion of offshore processing capabilities in order to achieve that.

Currently, offshore processing appears to work principally as a mechanism for keeping refugees out of Australia, rather than allowing them in. If bona fide refugees were being fairly, efficiently and humanely assessed under that system, there wouldn't be much motivation for them to embark on dangerous voyages in unseaworthy boats in order to seek asylum in Australia, would there?

Well done CJ Morgan for focussing on the issue, while ignoring ad hominem attacks.

The "Pacific Solution" and other Howard crimes against humanity - have no basis in true border protection but was a politically motivated chimera to appear tough.

Lest We Forget:

" "There comes a time when to uphold the law is to betray justice" …

One of Australia’s most eminent QCs, Julian Burnside..

"If we are to pursue justice, we must be prepared to question the laws we help administer"...

...."I learned, through the Tampa case..... that asylum-seekers are confronted by unjust laws being implemented by a government which has lost touch with ordinary standards of decency".

[following] his visit to the Baxter detention centre in South Australia earlier this month.

He described the scenes inside ......: "asylum-seekers walk around as if still alive; they talk as if they still have a hold on rational thinking, but they are not wholly there: ..... Their minds are gone: shredded, destroyed by hopelessness and despair".

"The management unit at Baxter is solitary confinement bordering on total sensory deprivation."

... United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has described Australia’s detention centres as "worse than prisons" ... UN Human Rights Commission said conditions were "an offence to human dignity".

Mr Burnside said the "most essential function" of the courts was to "stand as an impartial guardian of the rights of the weak against the wishes of the powerful".

......

"The High Court has acknowledged that there are circumstances where detention is necessary for the discharge of an executive function... this holds good only as long as the detention goes no further than can reasonably be seen as necessary to the executive purpose which supports it."
.....

Mr Burnside said the government’s case – that holding persons in such conditions for an indefinite period was lawful – was an argument "worthy of the legal positivists of the Nazi regime". "There comes a time when to uphold the law is to betray justice""

http://www.tonykevin.com.au/BurnsideOnDetention.html

We need Border Protection, we don't need to continue a cycle of misery.

CJ Morgan states:

“Currently, offshore processing appears to work principally as a mechanism for keeping refugees out of Australia, rather than allowing them in. If bona fide refugees were being fairly, efficiently and humanely assessed under that system, there wouldn't be much motivation for them to embark on dangerous voyages in unseaworthy boats in order to seek asylum in Australia, would there?”

CJMorgan would be aware the majority of the world’s asylum seekers are processed under strict unhcr criteria and with limited access to appeal, and if found to be a genuine refugee must wait until resettlement by another country becomes available. In actuality, few resettlement places are available.

CJMorgan would also be aware that by paying many thousands of dollars to people smugglers to arrive in Australia, secondary movement asylum seekers gain two great advantages. Firstly, they gain access to Australia’s very more lenient legal regime with multiple levels of appeal, and secondly, after being found by a lenient legal regime to require protection they then gain residence.

Would CJMorgan agree that people smuggling results in discrimination in refugee assessment. Those not having the large financial resources to pay people smugglers, that is the majority of the world’s refugees, are discriminated against. Those with substantial financial resources to pay people smugglers gain assessment by an easier legal regime and then gain residence if needing protection. Those without substantial financial resources to pay people smugglers are assessed by strict unhcr criteria with limited appeal and then wait for resettlement. Is CJMorgan against all forms of discrimination, and if so shouldn’t this discrimination be eliminated ?

An Article from “The Australian” states that Gholam Ali spent 18 months in detention on Nauru after being rescued by the Tampa, but is so determined to reach Australia that he paid people-smugglers thousands of dollars to try again.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24748378-601,00.html

The extended family (ten members) of an Iranian asylum seeker previously smuggled to Australia engages people smugglers to reach Australia. There was only a distant possibility of them coming to Australia under the family reunion scheme, so people smuggling was the method of choice.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24752542-25837,00.html

“If bona fide refugees”

And there in lies the nub

Determining someones “bona fides” is pretty difficult to do when they either throw any identification away or use forged documents.

To Fractelles second hand opinions to Baxter.

I personally know a past General Manager of Baxter. I know about the willful destruction and stand-over practices of some detainees.

I know and have seen the nature of “management units” in prisons, if not in Baxter specifically and understand how they are built and ‘managed’ to a prescribed specification which is further overseen by off-site supervisors.

The subjective opinions which Burnside displays is nothing short of “bleeding-heart hysteria” from someone out to make a name for themselves.

Fractelle “while ignoring ad hominem attacks.”

Would that be like

“heartless bastards. . .”
“the odious minority. . . “
“you’re a selectively heartless bastard”
“…wiped his arse and washed his hands thoroughly after passing that last lot.”
“Terms like hypocrite, heartless bastard, xenophobe and odious goose come to mind.”
“What a pity we can't deport miscreants like Porky. . .”
“the odious xenophobes”
“they hide timorously behind anonymity in order to spew their bile as these miserable excuses for humanity do”

The above all being from our resident moron

Or maybe
Fractelle:
“flaccid as they are spurious
"shut their big mouths"

Spikey
“A pair of neocons out with lemmings”
“hateful psychobabble”
“Polycarpian scare-monger with half-truths and exaggerations.”

It seems to me your criticism of ad hominem attacks should be balanced with the obvious

Fractelle, you cannot defend Moron’s stoicism in the face of ad hominem attacks when he and you have been authors of so many.

Without intending any attack at all, the clear implication is obvious

Fractelle you are incapable of fashioning reasoned argument and intolerant of anyone who dares express a view contrary to that held by yourself.

In short, Fractelle is a fully formed but strangely small minded hypocrite.

I often see some redeemable qualities in most folk but in you and the moron,

I see none

Now have a nice day, I for one, will not be thinking about you.

CJ; “I don’t recall much in the way of ‘civil unrest’… “

Well, I think that the whole asylum seeker issue has caused quite considerable civil agitation, if not unrest. We’re still discussing the events of 2001 regularly on this forum sevens years on. The Tampa incident, SIEV X, Nauru and the whole mandatory detention saga has proven to be a major episode in this country’s history. Any little developments are still major news items. And it wasn’t exactly a non-event either years earlier with the arrival of Vietnamese boat people.

All of this has caused a great deal of fracturing and polarisation, and added greatly to the mistrust of government and of authority per se.

Any effort to eliminate it from our long list of contentious issues would surely be a good thing.

I find it quite strange that you’d be willing to accept a continuous sporadic and at times quite substantial rate of arrivals, given all the problems associated with it.

In terms of numbers, if more than a trickle did arrive, it would most definitely cause an escalation in the magnitude of the political and social aspects, which would most definitely result in a clamp-down on the whole business. So, the only way that it would be acceptable to the Australian populace and hence to government would be for it to remain at a very low rate indeed. And if it is to be at such a low rate, and hence not at all worth the trouble compared to the humanitarian value, then why wouldn’t efforts be made to stop it once and for all?

I mean, surely it is just plain commonsense to put an end to all of this and concentrate our humanitarian efforts elsewhere….in a manner that is both much more acceptable to the vast majority of Australian citizens and that is much more useful in addressing refugee issues at their sources and in accommodating some of the most needy bona fide refugees.

“ ‘Border protection’ is a classic jingoistic trope…”

Could you please clarify this CJ. Thanks.

Ludwig, with your last post you hit the nail on the head.

That's exactly the point, to prevent people resorting to desperate measures and taking out on leaky boats to get here.

That's why if we had a large number of humanitarian visas and it was known that if you are a genuine refugee your chances of getting to Australia is actually a reasonable possibility, there would be little excuse to venture out in a dismal boat.

Of course there'll still be people too impatient, or desperate, who will attempt coming here by boat, but is it rational to act as if these people must be the most dangerous, the most evil and therefore not entitled to courteous, efficient and professional treatment? Especially thinking of how we believe justice is to be applied, why Australia is such a desirable place to live.

It is not an OK way for refugees to come to Australia as some do, but is also not OK for some of us to act as if there is an invasion occurring. The reaction is way out of proportion. Australia is so far away we will never have the floods that are occurring in Europe.

We have a new football stadium in our suburb that seats 30 000, I can tell you about floods of undesirables! We can quite easily manage the couple of thousand that evade our border patrols in a decent manner.

By the way, is it in any way shape or form logical to claim that 'boat people' must be rich because they pay people smugglers? If they were rich they'd pay a quality forger for quality papers and buy a ticket out for a 'holiday', 'business trip', 'education/training' in Australia. Because as we all know, it all about 'Papers'.

Fractelle, you certainly got ColR stirred up! As you know anybody who has disagreed with him has been subjected to belittling comments and emotive epithets. And woe betide you if you respond in kind! Doesn't he adore his copy and paste? At least it means he keeps on reading your previous posts.