Bruce Haigh asks, in his post of Friday, 21 November 2008 9:27:47 PM:

"Why is there this hang up [up]on boat people? Far more refugee applicants arrive by plane than by boat."

Is it not the case that if a person arrives, undocumented and unassessed, in Australia, by plane, they will be denied entry and returned from whence they have come at the expense of the airline that brought them here? Is this not the principal point of difference between 'boat people' and refugee applicants arriving by plane?

Some posters have laid stress upon claims of Australia being bound by one form or other of international agreement to accept asylum seekers, and that such asylum seekers have some right to temporary residence, but evade the fact that this relates only to primary movement of asylum seekers. Australia is effectively naturally relatively isolated from primary movement asylum seeking. Virtually all boat entry attempts have been made via Indonesia carrying non-Indonesian passengers, asylum seekers who have already passed through at least one country of refuge within which they should, if genuinely seeking asylum, have sought refugee status.

The point is that few, if any, attempt the long ocean voyage from, say, Iran or Sri Lanka direct to Australia. The reason is obvious: such a voyage would require a truly seaworthy craft and still entail enormous risks to life outside any area of arguably Australian responsibility. By contrast, departing from Indonesia requires only a relatively short ocean voyage, the object of which is to simply reach, say, Ashmore Reef, there, or nearby, to founder and duly be rescued by an Australian vessel. A literal 'guilt trip', if ever there was one; the craft upon which it is made desirably being cheap and unseaworthy.

The relative leniency of the Australian requirements and process appears to be acting as an attractant of secondary movement 'asylum seekers', let alone providing a feather bed for that part of the Australian legal profession that thrives in this environment. Time we plugged this leak in our already full Australian lifeboat, otherwise we might all sink.

The whole Tampa episode was used to beat the Howard government over
the head and they are still at it.

Here is a fact that everyone ignores;
When the Tampa picked up the passengers and crew from the sinking
boat they were in the Indonesian Search and Rescue Area.
They were always Indonesia's responsibility.
They had left Indonesia and should have been returned there.
That was the proper course that should have been followed.
If there were refugees amongst them they had passed through several
other countries and should have applied in the first safe country for asylum.
However most seemed to have sold up at home and bought plane tickets
to either Malaysia or Indonesia. They don't sound like someone
running in fear of their lives.

Forrest Gumpp: << Is it not the case that if a person arrives, undocumented and unassessed, in Australia, by plane, they will be denied entry and returned from whence they have come at the expense of the airline that brought them here? >>

Not if they arrive seeking asylum:

<< Australia has an obligation to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of whether they arrive with or without a visa.

As a state party to the Refugee Convention, Australia has agreed to ensure that people who meet the definition of ‘refugee’ under the Refugee Convention are not sent back to a country where they risk persecution. This is known as the principle of non-refoulement.

In addition, Australia has an obligation not to return those who face a real risk of violation of their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, articles 6 and 7) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), even if they do not meet the definition of ‘refugee’ under the Refugee Convention. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) also requires Australia to provide special protection to refugee children and children seeking asylum in Australia.

[...]

Some asylum seekers are detained in immigration detention.

Under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), asylum seekers who have arrived by unauthorised means, by boat or airport arrival, without a visa, must be kept in immigration detention until they are granted a protection visa, or a bridging visa, or are removed from Australia. As a result, some asylum seekers have been in immigration detention for prolonged periods of time. >>

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/asylum_seekers.html

*As a consequence every resettlement place taken by such an Iranian asylum seeker resulted in one less available place in Australia’s refugee resettlement program for a UNHCR refugee.*

Interesting posts Franklin and the above is my very point.
If we are going to accept refugees, whatever number we agree on,
first past the post sailing here is not the way to select them.
How to best select them is open to debate.

It cannot be denied that most people trying to seek asylum in
Australia, also hope for a better economic future and this might
be one way to do it, if they can get away with it. As was pointed
out, people are travelling a long way to get here and spending
quite a bit of money. If I was fearing for my life, across the
border would do.

I have no doubt that Australia is seen as a soft touch on all this.
Proving that somebody is not genuine in their claims, would be
extremely difficult.

If we have a look at the situation in the third world, places
like the Congo make Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, look like a Sunday
school picnic. There is much misery out there, that is for sure.

We cannot take them all, so we have two options really, to see
that the most deserving are helped. Renegotiate the UN convention
or make life as difficult as possible for those who try and sail
here.

There seem to be no easy options

Yabby is more than correct when he/she points out that the 1951 Refugee Convention needs renegotiation – or perhaps radical overhaul would be more appropriate. The Convention was designed in a different era and was designed for a different era.

In nearly all emotive matters rhetoric, exaggeration and emotional slogans masquerade as truths, but they are essentially beliefs and do need to be logically challenged. It is all too easy to write a few emotionally charged sentences laced with emotive words such as “desperate refugees” and “oppression”, “torture” and “inhumanity”, but perhaps a more balanced and credible view can be obtained from well researched academic papers that put aside emotive rhetoric and present logical and reasoned arguments based on facts.

Adrienne Millbank, an academic from Monash University, wrote a very informative paper entitled “Dark Victory Or Circuit Breaker: Australia And The International Refugee System Post Tampa” detailing the dysfunctionality of the international refugee system, which can be downloaded from:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/view/issue/?volume=11&issue=2

Adrienne Millbank also wrote another informative paper entitled “The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention” which can be found at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rp/2000-01/01rp05.htm

Salient points made in the paper include the following:

the Convention definition of refugee is outdated, as is its notion of exile as a solution to refugee problems

it confers no right of assistance on refugees unless and until they reach a signatory country, it imposes no obligation on countries not to persecute or expel their citizens, and it imposes no requirement for burden sharing between states

the asylum channel is providing an avenue for irregular migration and is linked with people smuggling and criminality

the Convention takes no account of the impact (political, financial, social) of large numbers of asylum seekers on receiving countries

there is inequity of outcomes between 'camp' and 'Convention' refugees. Priority is given to those present, on the basis of their mobility, rather than to those with the greatest need

there is a gross disparity between what Western countries spend on processing and supporting asylum seekers, and what they contribute to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for the world refugee effort

Some of you silly emotive fools easily bought into Howard's brand of Liberal government propaganda and are consequently scared silly of refugees. In the 50's and 60's you were petrified of communists, in the 80's it was the yellow peril. Now it is boat people.

A measly number of extremely brave or foolhardy people, compared to the approx 49 000 visa overstayers. Those are the rich ones. Fly in on a plane with a passport and money.

The saddest part is that right wing thinkers love screeching 'bleeding hearts' and other very emotive epiteths to those who are not as easily frightened as yourself, or who can actually think for themselves.

Australia brings in some 148 000 migrants per year plus only 13 000 on humanitarian visas. This is so scandelous that I do not know how to explain this to my children.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/04fifty.htm#stats

Poor nations are being plundered of their skilled and wealthy citizens, those who are the only ones who could possibly govern and build up their own countries. We are aiding and abetting in the creation and enlarging the huge refugee problem.

If we need more people in this country, they should be refugees, displaced peoples. Not educated, skilled people from other nations.

If we need skilled people then we will damn well train and educate Australians who are already here and refugees ourselves.