“Of course we decide who comes to this country and the means by which they come.”

YES Kim Hyunh. You’ve got it. This is the bottom line. It’s not just the sovereign right of any country to uphold this, it is the ONLY way to prevent or minimise the trauma, conflict, social unrest, political turmoil, etc, involved with the whole business of onshore asylum-seeking.

To this end, Rudd made the gravest mistake in diluting Australia’s policy on this whole issue. I can’t help but view it as just about the single stupidest policy decision in the history of this country.

How on earth could he have done this, given the history of this issue in Australia?

Even with Howard’s strong efforts to clamp down on onshore asylum-seeking, we still saw awful things happen. Without his efforts and with a much more open-door policy, this would have been one or two orders of magnitude worse. I don’t think anyone can doubt that.

So just at the time that the whole ugly saga was drawing to a close, and there was practically no one left in detention centres to be affected by Howard’s policy, Rudd goes and blows the whole can of worms wide open again.

Yes the blame needs to be allocated partly to the people-smugglers and partly to some asylum seekers. But by far the biggest fault lies with our unillustrious PM and his wonky colleagues that allowed such a mindless backward step in border-protection / people-smuggling / refugee policy to get up.

Hear here.

A succinct little article, which of course immediately elicits predictable (if inaccurate) responses from the usual suspects.

Ludwig has obviously swallowed the Opposition's shameful agenda hook, line and sinker, while KMB seems to jump on every far right bastard bandwagon that OLO has to offer.

The only salient change that the Rudd government has made to policy regarding onshore asylum seekers is to abandon the inhumane and ridiculously expensive 'Pacific Solution'. Mandatory detention still exists, huge chunks of Australia's territory remain bureaucratically excised from our so-called 'migration zone' and the overwhelming majority of onshoe asylum seekers arrive by air.

There is very little evidence to support the opportunistic contention that the abandonment of the shameful 'Pacific Solution' has had any effect at all on whether the poor buggers in limbo in Indonesia and Malaysia decide to risk the dangers of coming to Australia by boat.

No doubt numerous other OLOers will join Ludwig and KMB in the 'blame game' - I suggest that they re-read Kim Huynh's excellent article before submitting ignorant comments like the first two above.

Boy oh boy CJ, who got out of the wrong side of bed this morning then ?!?

Some ‘salient’ questions for you:

What do you think would have happened if Howard hadn’t implemented a decisive policy change on onshore asylum-seeking at the time of the Tampa incident in August 2001, given that our intelligence sources told us that there was a rapidly escalating build-up of people heading our way on rickety boats?

What do you think Howard should have done at the time?

Do you really support Rudd’s watering down of this policy which despite what you say appears to be highly significant in the escalation of boat-people numbers, especially at a time when the driving forces for this movement are increasing, as is being repeatedly expressed by Rudd and his ministers?

Surely it was vital that a strong policy be left in place if not boosted at this point in time, yes?

If there was no one for the policy to apply to, ie; no one in detention and no one on the way, then it wouldn’t matter how ‘hard’ the policy was, just as long as it acted as a very strong deterrent.

The blame lies entirely with the Rudd Government and its refusal to protect our borders. Border protection should consist of turning back boats before they get into our waters, and/or driving them out of our waters. As it is, the navy kindly escorts them to Christmas Island so that the can come into Australia in a shorter time that they could with the Howard Government.

“Border protection should consist of turning back boats before they get into our waters, and/or driving them out of our waters.”

The problem is, those values of border protection are inconsistent with the values Australia has undertaken in the 1951 UN Convention on refugees. This says that if a person claiming to be a refugee gets inside a signatory state’s territory, the state then has to make a determination whether he satisfies the criteria of refugee status. This means that he has ‘a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion’ – on a case by case basis.

It is this fact that makes for the divide in Australian law between onshore and offshore refugee applications. An application made offshore can be rejected out of hand, even if it satisfies the criteria for refugee status. An application made onshore has the advantage that it attracts the due process, such as it is, of a determination of refugee status, which can then be reviewed on the merits by the Refugee Review Tribinal, which can be reviewed for error of law by the Federal Court, all the way up to the High Court.

It's not the refugees' fault that we have undertaken to protect them.

It’s a question of not bullshhitting. If border protection values are to have priority, then the least Australia needs to do is withdraw from the Convention, and stop falsely pretending to the world to humanitarian credentials we have no claim to.

But if Australia doesn’t withdraw, then we should bloody well do what we have undertaken to do, and not add our own name to the list of lying persecuting states.

*Obviously* someone should not be returned to persecution, and I would rather we err on the humanitarian side, than err on the anti-human state-worshipping side.

*The problem is, those values of border protection are inconsistent with the values Australia has undertaken in the 1951 UN Convention on refugees*

That is exactly why Australia should withdraw from the convention
or push for it to be brought up to date. This same problem exists
all over Europe, as people seeking a better life, much like
Mexicans flooding to the US, flood Europe under claims of asylum.

Sadly nobody has the testicles to tackle it full on and bring
about the required changes globally.

Ludwig

"Boy oh boy CJ, who got out of the wrong side of bed this morning then ?!?"

I doubt CJ got out of the bed any differently to any other morning, Ludwig. He's obviously as tired as I am though of seeing you sweep into these refugee debates every time and make the same black and white pronouncements, as though the solutions are just so simple if only we poor blind souls could see them as clearly as you do. With the greatest of respect, you're beginning to sound as much like a cracked record on this debate, as you do on the issue of population control, which as you know I agree with you on, and I'm sure CJ does too.

This debate is not nearly as open and shut, and I doubt very much that your position is a fully informed one. Either that, or you don't care that your preferred policy position results in people drowning when boats are turned back, and people losing their sanity in indefinite detention and on TPVs, which preclude them from working to support themselves. Punitive measures will not stop the boats when the 'push' factors are strong, as they are right now.

The boats are coming because of escalating insecurity in the world's troublespots. Numbers of boat arrivals are increasing in all countries, not just Australia. The fact that the Rudd Government has overthrown some of the most punitive aspects of the Howard detention regime might be influencing a few of the Mr Bigs in the people-smuggling business, but it's not a major factor, and certainly not for the desperate people caught up in the trade through sheer necessity, rather than a ruthless eye to profit.

Many asylum seekers from Iraq and Afghanistan actually prefer to go to Europe. They often have no idea where they'll end up when they jump on those boats and many have never heard of Australia. Most have no idea about the change of government, let alone the change of policy.

Unlike some here, Ludwig, you do have a heart. Please listen to it. :)

*Unlike some here, Ludwig, you do have a heart. Please listen to it. :)*

Translated from Bronwyn speak Ludwig, that means that you should throw
all reason out the window and let your emotions dominate.

Just focus on how you feel. Just be emotionally engulfed and feel
better, you can always rationalise the rest away later, no matter
how irrational it actually is.

Ah, life is so simple, when we just follow our feelings and close
our eyes. Reality just goes wooooosh. Yipeee, all gone :)

God, is it true? We even have people teaching uni courses on how to be nice to these bludgers.

Perhaps it's time to put a lot of these useless idiots, cluttering up our uni's limlimited space, on a leaky boat to anywhere else but here.

It's interesting we have 2 articles bleeding all over these bludgers, followed by one suggesting we must stop breeding, to save the planet.

Well, if we have to limit our population, I'll have borders of steel, & more maternity wards, any time thanks.

yabby, to have a heart is not to give up on reason, but it is to recognize that there are people involved, and people in the main who are simply seeking a better life. and the vast majority of asylum seekers are legitimate refugees, even as judged by the dodgy legal process set up to evaluate them.

your pointing to a legitimate social and political issue does not take the humanness out of these "bludgers". the demonizing of asylum seekers was one of howard's most disgusting acts. to see turnbull and his team resort again to such swill politics is truly depressing. the lack of empathy for these "bludgers" shown by some of the posters here is equally depressing.

and for what? so australia ends up with a few hundred or a few thousand extra refugees. big fat hairy deal. europe has a big problem: for us, the problem is trivial in consequence.

bushbasher,
Kudos to the voice of compassion!

Yabby

Treating people in a humane manner doesn't mean abandoning all reason. In fact I'd go further to say that you have let your rational cap behind when describing people smugglers as business-men.

As for Rudd's so-called softening on boat-people, please read the following BEFORE reacting as you tend to do.

The “border protection” policy hasn’t been watered down so much as dribbled on, the Rudd Labor government has maintained the core of the Howard government’s policies — mandatory detention, offshore processing and excision of islands from Australia’s immigration zone. Labor has also continued the deterrence and punishment for those who attempt to arrive “unauthorised” on Australian offshore islands. That is why Christmas Island has been retained.

The ‘new’ policy still has no time limit on the period of detention and no independent review of people who are detained. The independent immigration ombudsman can only recommend, not order, that a person be released from detention.

Keeping people offshore in the Christmas Island detention prevents them from accessing the same rights as other asylum seekers (the ones who arrive by the planeload).

This policy remains in breach of the refugee convention, which requires protection without discrimination for ALL refugees, regardless of how they enter a country.

It is extremely difficult for refugee workers, lawyers and community members concerned for the health and well-being people incarcerated on Christmas Island to gain access, information and assist with claims.

This IS the reality.

I Love JESUS.I know that he is only one god.But i need a answer that I Love a Girl.I realy Love.Please answer me that it's true or false?

Somewhere between 10 to 15 years ago a report was published warning about the invasion of Australia from the north. It was not a military invasion, but an invasion of people seeking a better life.

A middle eastern colleague said he could not beleive the benefits that the Australian government gives to people, for example in his country, if you do not work, you do not eat. In Australia the government gives people money for doing nothing.

He said Australia is the land of milk and honey.

However, the question remains should large numbers of people be accepted as refugees, how is this country going employ them, supply transport, housing.

Just as agriculture is not managing to supply enough food for the population we already have, and the rapidly dwindling water supply. How is Australia going to manage. Our health care system is serverely stretched already.

More and more cars are being added to the roads, because of very poor public transport systems in the major capital cities.

More cars equal more green house gases added to the atmosphere, as people spend more time travelling too and from work, because of the additional motor vechiles.

Maybe this is just the kind of pressure that politicans need to have applied to them.

But then again I don't beleive in mircles.

How lenient to be on asylum claims is a really vexed question. It boils down to the right of individuals to flee persecution and squalor and to find a better life versus the right of a nation state to control its sovereignty and culture as well as the quality and integrity of the lifestyle of its citizens. These are pretty weighty issues that deserve plenty of thought. The difficulty is that truths lie on both sides of the equation.

A problem is that when foreigners come into the country unannounced, it is the psychological equivalent of “the Barbarians are storming the gates” as the resident population instinctively mobilises to meet it. This reaction comes from deep in the human psyche and is not easily changed.

On the one hand, Australia should be willing to take refugees to pull its weight internationally in light of the UN Convention on Refugees. On the other hand, if Australia is seen by those that are most likely to exploit the situation that it is an easy touch, there might be no end of asylum attempts if the cost-benefit ratio is seen to be improved by a relaxing in Government policy. There’s no doubt that this relationship is a fluid yin-yang one.

Your view is dependent on who you are. If you are doing well personally and are reasonably easy-going, you'll probably be happy to let asylum seekers in more easily. If you are in a position to have to make some hard decisions, like the PM, or are doing it tough personally, you will more likely maintain a minimalist asylum seeker policy for as long as possible.

One thing for sure is that if the Government takes the wrong decision on this or gets the timing wrong, it will have profound consequences on the country. I just hope, whatever they do, the Government gets it right.

Actually what it really "boils down to" is everybody's need to attribute blame to somebody for every single thing they don't like.

Arguing over the symptoms won't eliminate the cause will it?

These forums are becoming a lot like the "outrage/end-of-cilivilisation-as-we-know-it" talk-back radio.

<”Many asylum seekers from Iraq and Afghanistan actually prefer to go to Europe. They often have no idea where they'll end up when they jump on those boats and many have never heard of Australia. Most have no idea about the change of government, let alone the change of policy.”>

Now that's bit far fetched, the boats leave from Indonesia, thousands of klms from Iraq and Afghanistan, in the opposite direction to Europe. These people have to travel through at least 4 muslim countries to get to the place of embarkation in Indonesia, it costs them huge amounts of money so they are not poor.

It's all well and good to say it's only few hundred or thousand people, but why do you think 95% of them are men? Simple, they buy their way here then under our stupid family reunion policy they bring 10-20 of their relatives here, breed like flies, set up ghettos and demand their culture and religious laws be implemented for them.

There's a simple solution, all those jumping queues by flying here under false pretences and by boat, should be send back to their place of embarkation and told to join the queue. That will stop them pretty quickly. The most sensible thing to do is withdraw from the refugee convention and get our own house in order first.

Wobbles,

"Arguing over the symptoms won't eliminate the cause will it?"

True. But what will eliminate the cause? What exactly are the actions that are going to mitigate the push/pull factors? I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for an answer to this one.

At least by talking about it, a dialogue can be struck up about what we can do, even if it's around the edges to start with.

Bronwyn, I consider you one of the most respectable posters on this forum. But your last post falls outside of your normal standard IMO.

Why are my comments on the subject of asylum seekers, repeated numerous times on this forum like a cracked record when yours, also often repeated apparently aren’t?

I don’t make black and white pronouncements any more than you. In fact, I reckon I see shades of grey and points of balance on multifaceted spectra much moreso than the majority of posters.

We’ve been debating this issue on this forum since December 05. See this post and our following exchanges: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3838#22156

You wrote: “We share a lot of common ground here. I agree we should increase our international aid to 7 % [0.7% of GDP]. I also agree on doubling our refugee intake and reducing our total immigration.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3838#23023

And: “I don't advocate free borders, I think we need controls” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3838#22557

So just what it is that you disagree with?

How can we have effective border protection while at the same time facilitating the arrival and assimilation of a small or moderate number of asylum seekers in such a way that they are not seen to be harshly dealt with by some people and that the floodgates are not opened? We can’t!! It is impossible. Isn’t it?

My heart tells me that Australia should be putting a much bigger effort into global refugee issues, but that facilitating onshore asylum seekers in the way that Rudd is now doing should not be part of it.

Would you like to a have a go at directly addressing the questions I asked of CJ in my last post Bronwyn.

With a global economy, you get a globally mobile population. It is only natural for people to look for a better life, and they will look to areas of prosperity. Those who are in countries suffering wars, will naturally want to leave and seek a better life. Some simply do not see the possibllity of peace for their family, some are from persecuted minorities, and some have no family.

Re: the comments about bludging: It was amazing when I lived in the UK how so many immigrants bludged by working 7 days a week, 12 hours a day (or more) running shops and convenience stores which everyone was grateful for. The same arguments were being trotted out then...they just want to bleed the system, just want an easy ride. It simply wasn't true. Just as there will always be those that bludge and are home grown, there will be bludgers among immigrants. We just can't generalise about all immigrants.

In terms of population growth...illegal immigrants are a very, in fact miniscule, component of this. Barely worth a mention.

Absolutely agree, Phil.

Hasbeen I love your tag;-very appropriate.

(Oh no! Not the short posts as well!)

There is an old maxim that a gov must take control of an issue, or some one else will.

When the latest refugees were asked what induced them to make the journey, the issue of relaxation of the mandatory detention was a contributing factor.

The old policy of permanently preventing access to illegal immigrants meant that they were facing a closed door and didn't bother to waste their time or money.

Labor relaxed control, and someone else took the reins.

"When the latest refugees were asked what induced them to make the journey, the issue of relaxation of the mandatory detention was a contributing factor." (Quote: SM)

Firstly: as Bronwyn has indicated elsewhere, the status 'illegal' is yet to be proved. You may not like that, but it IS the case.

Stop using the word 'illegal', it is incorrect.

Secondly: who was asked? when? what evidence do you have that they were refugees?
I saw footage of a so-called 'refugee' in shadow, being interviewed,-and he made such claims, quite enthusiastically..

As I've said elsewhere, I'm a cynic. What an opportune piece of footage it is....
_______________________

(I now have the opportunity to explain my comment in brackets in my last post, because again I'm getting server error when I try to post).

Bushbasher, fyi I was having a lighthearted dig at Bronwyn, for
on another thread she wrote this:

*I learnt long ago that Yabby's heart is well and truly ruled by his head. And of course he thinks
the reverse of the likes of you and me.*

Now if you or anybody else can show me that if the heart rules the
head, or emotional engulfment, is a sensible way to live, I would
like to hear about it. I did in fact include a little smiley
at the end, hoping it would be understood as a friendly dig.

*In fact I'd go further to say that you have let your rational cap behind when describing people smugglers as business-men.*

Fractelle, not at all. For as I have pointed out repeatedly, it
is the policies of the Australian Govt, which they are free to
change if they wish, which create the demand in the first place.
They should not be amazed if people respond to that demand. In
fact for their policy to not contradict itself, they should be
encouraging an accredited, safe, transport service.

Failing all that, they are free to withdraw from the 1951 convention,
or see to it that it is brought up to date, as I have been suggesting.

So what is irrational about all that?

Rudd had good reasons to use Christmas Island, for Howard had built
them a luxury 400$million centre, for 800 people. That is half a
milllion $ per head. You might not receive the news reports that
we do here in the West, but by what we have heard so far from the
press, lobster for Chrissy, free i-pods, down town shopping and
allowances, fresh fruit and veggies to the point that the locals
are missing out, the list goes on. These people are not exactly
doing it tough and would no doubt be emailing all their friends
to join them. Fair enough, I don't blame them for wanting a
cushy life. I blame Australian Govts for lacking the testicles
to introduce policy that does not contradict itself.

yabby, sure. sorry to intrude on an insider dig. i'd still prefer a little more heart in your analyses ...

Yabby

Your claims: "You might not receive the news reports that
we do here in the West, but by what we have heard so far from the
press, lobster for Chrissy, free i-pods, down town shopping and
allowances, fresh fruit and veggies to the point that the locals
are missing out, the list goes on. These people are not exactly
doing it tough and would no doubt be emailing all their friends
to join them."

Any links to verify your claims?

BTW, if you had bothered to do some research, since you clearly avoid reading any posts that conflict with your world view, you would know that Rudd's 'watering down' of border protection is minimal. The current influx of asylum seekers are due to conflicts in their home countries.

Let's consider the situation since Rudd was elected because Howard apparently solved this problem on a global scale.

Let's forget the 4500 that arrived by plane during that time and only focus on the 180 boat people.

Of those, let's forget about the ones from Sri Lanka and New Guinea and concentrate only on those from the the Middle East.

Let's forget that historically 90% of all boat arrivals have been found to be bona fide refugees and only consider the mode of transport.

So who is to blame?

Let's start with those who "profit from the misery of others". I'm not talking about doctors or lawyers but People Smugglers.

Well it's obviously the fault of the people smugglers who provide that service!

But without refugees they would have no market to ply their evil trade so it's obviously the fault of the refugees themselves.
So why are they leaving their countries?

Some posters believe they may be the spearhead of some vast invasion fleet that is going to destroy our society from within but let's simply imply that their claims are all fake and just want a better way of life.

Let's forget those who had their claim rejected and been killed on their return to the Middle East or the woman who had her 8 month old fetus forcibly aborted on her return on China.

So what's wrong with their own countries? Are they being "pushed out" by their own circumstances or "pulled in" by our own soft immigration policy?

Well they seem to have been ruled by despotic regimes and may now be at war with the West as a result.

How did these tyrants get into power in the first place?

Most were sponsored and even supported by us in some way until our circumstances changed, simply because they had something we wanted.

Bushbasher
“and the vast majority of asylum seekers are legitimate refugees, even as judged by the dodgy legal process set up to evaluate them.”

Not correct. About 12% total are finally recognised as having refugee status.

Ginx
“Firstly: as Bronwyn has indicated elsewhere, the status 'illegal' is yet to be proved. You may not like that, but it IS the case.

Not correct. Under the Migration Act, it is against the law for a non-citizen to enter Australia without a visa, and the Act’s term for someone who does so is “unlawful non-citizen”.

Fractelle
“This policy remains in breach of the refugee convention, which requires protection without discrimination for ALL refugees, regardless of how they enter a country.”

Not correct. The UN convention on refugees requires protection for those *who already have been recognised* as refugees. Those removed to remote islands have not yet been recognised as refugees. If and when they are so recognised, they are given protection without discrimination,so the policy is not in breach of the Convention.

Someone
”the demonizing of asylum seekers was one of howard's most disgusting acts. “

Both parties are tarred with the same brush; there is no significant difference between them. For example, it was the pre-Howard Labor government that introduced mandatory detention for children.

Stormbay
“The most sensible thing to do is withdraw from the refugee convention...”

Yes.

JamesH
Your post shows the commonest underlying concerns: that by coming here people are entitled to so many benefits paid for by the government taking the money under compulsion from the population. Notice that the real underlying issue is not about immigration per se. It is about the welfare state. Why should anyone, not just refugees, receive without working? It it’s a matter of social justice, doesn’t social justice apply to other peoples?

All
I personally think that refugees are a great net benefit to Australia. But I also recognise the fact that, if you get enough Afghans in one place, you get Afghanistan

In response to Ludwig's questions, I think that the most obvious consequence if Howard hadn't shamefully appealed to Australia's racist underbelly around the Tampa incident would have been that he wouldn't have been re-elected. Also, several hundred legitimate refugees wouldn't have had to endure the inhumane conditions to which they were subjected by his regime before they were eventually accepted.

What makes you think that Howard's policies towards asylum seekers stopped them from coming? They continued to arrive by boat and air, but were no longer seen as newsworthy by the tabloids.

Well written article. As some pointed out the usual suspects needed to express their fears about 'others', nothing new really.

What I think quite interesting is the number of people who truly and sincerely believe that in the rest of the world, in every refugee camp, in every heavily censored totalitarian state, the local populace is intimately involved in the flavour of our political government and minutely up to date with every policy change. These places must be bristling with satelite dishes pointed towards Australia receiving signals directly from our 'left' wing ABC.

We think we are important, but folks, even 75% of the population of our dear allies, the US of A don't know where we are, who our PM is, that we even had an election or that we regard ourselves part of 'the coalition of the willing'. The USA, Europe and Canada get many, many more requests for asylum than we do.

Australia just doesn't register much on the radar, Europe and the USA do. Simply by the size of their armed forces in many of the trouble spots.

Kim Huynh poses the question “who is responsible?” – a better question might be, who is to be believed?

We should treat any analysis by a ¬teacher of Refugee Politics– with the same degree of skepticism as we would a tobacco company’s study on the affects of smoking.

Kim believes the stories of ‘persecution and conflict”, despite such stories being at odds with the facts:
--Though the true believers will deny it, long, & loud .It’s OFTEN the case that asylum seekers are fleeing REGIONAL disturbances , NOT NATIONWIDE conflicts. If their intent was purely to escape danger, they might have managed that in many cases by relocating within their old country!
--But having decided to leave their old country, why didn’t they apply for asylum in any of the intermediate countries they passed through?
Not being signatories to refugee conventions does not preclude countries from accepting refugees – especially if they’re the same religion/race i.e. Sri Lankan Tamils to India – ME Muslims to, proudly Muslim, Malaysia or Indonesia !

Kim wants us to believe the numbers are small “and well within our capacity to deal with”
We should be careful about believing any such assurances :
1) “ For ten years I was head of the UK immigration service. I have long known that the Home Office statics’ bear no relation at all to the true facts on Immigration… the actual number was more than twice the official one” -- Peter Tompkins

2) As of 2005 some 449,000 New Zealanders lived in Australia…in the years 2004-05 33,905 came to Aust as permanent residents ..of these 23% were not born in NZ.Like Italy vis-à-vis Europe, much of what NZ ‘accepts’ ends up in Australia .

The full cost of any intake is not just the 100-200 that are initially accepted, but the 1000s who will inevitably follow …And, the creation of a self perpetuating bureaucracy to cater for/study/advocate for them …including, such -highly productive- positions as …teacher of Refugee Politics at the Australian National University!

wing ah ling,

where do you get your 12%? in case it wasn't clear, i was talking about asylum seekers who make it to australia. of these, amnesty international says:

"Generally, 84 per cent of all asylum seekers arriving in Australia without proper documentation are found to be legitimate refugees and are able to stay here."

as for both parties "being tarred with the same brush", yes that is true. but only one party dipped the whole damn bucket of tar over themselves. labor was (and is) disgusting. except in comparison to howard, and reith, and ruddock, and the rest of that loathesome bunch.

CJ

My questions to you were:

What do you think Howard should have done at the time?

Do you really support Rudd’s watering down of this policy which despite what you say appears to be highly significant in the escalation of boat-people numbers, especially at a time when the driving forces for this movement are increasing, as is being repeatedly expressed by Rudd and his ministers?

Surely it was vital that a strong policy be left in place if not boosted at this point in time, yes?

You wrote:

“In response to Ludwig's questions, I think that the most obvious consequence if Howard hadn't shamefully appealed to Australia's racist underbelly around the Tampa incident would have been that he wouldn't have been re-elected. Also, several hundred legitimate refugees wouldn't have had to endure the inhumane conditions to which they were subjected by his regime before they were eventually accepted.”

Excuse me, but that’s not an answer to the above questions, it skirts around the first question and completely fails to address the other two.

Comeon, you branded my first post “ignorant comments”. So it is time to put some substance behind your rhetoric.

The three questions above are hanging out to be answered.

You ask a question of me:

“What makes you think that Howard's policies towards asylum seekers stopped them from coming?”

I’d love to answer it. But fair’s fair – you answer mine and I’ll answer yours.

"Some posters believe they may be the spearhead of some vast invasion fleet that is going to destroy our society from within but let's simply imply that their claims are all fake and just want a better way of life."

I personally believe the vast majority of asylum seekers do primarily come here for a better way of life and that they are not Barbarians. That doesn't mean that physics doesn't apply though. If enough people of any particular race/culture settle in a country, it's just natural they clump together to form a bloc. So an ordered immigration policy that controls overall numbers as well as numbers of particular ethnic/cultural types is absolutely essential to ensure that our way of life isn't destroyed.

However, ...
Do asylum seekers, as humans, get the rough end of the stick? Absolutely. Is it fair on them? No. Should there be less "skilled" migration (where some of the migrants granted such visas disappear into the unskilled workforce)? Yes. Does the ultimate solution to the asylum seeker problem lie in improving the rule of law in developing and underdeveloped countries so that people have no need to flee in the first place? Yes. Are these easy problems to fix? No.

The best a Government of a developed country can do is to maintain a migration policy that best balances all the competing forces. When the overall paradigm shifts, they then need to shift to a new balance point.

In a liberal democracy people have the right to hold and express diverse opinions, as reflected in the robust discussion above. A fundamental measure of whether opinions are civilized and morally defensible is how they perceive and portray other humans. At one end of the spectrum are those who seek to understand, respect and care about others, at the other are those who choose to be judgemental (they would probably say "realistic"). The real question is which approach is effective is sustaining a harmonious, tolerant, caring, fair and just society? Many of the people who have settled here have fled societies where conflict, violence and inhumanity are common in the absence of decent and humane values. Only the ignorant and arrogant believe that humans are really any different (or of less "value") because they come from somewhere else.

"Ginx
“Firstly: as Bronwyn has indicated elsewhere, the status 'illegal' is yet to be proved. You may not like that, but it IS the case.

Not correct. Under the Migration Act, it is against the law for a non-citizen to enter Australia without a visa, and the Act’s term for someone who does so is “unlawful non-citizen”." (Quote:WALy)
______________________

Is that so? Well I'll have to make some checks won't I?

You may be right. You never know.............

".....Under the Migration Act, it is against the law for a non-citizen to enter Australia without a visa..."

Incorrect. Now it's YOUR turn to make some checks. (The High Court/Federal Parliament).

The terminology 'illegal'. This is interesting. It has taken on the same shape as the argument about global warming. Depends where you look. Still working on it. I love legal research, don't you WALy?

It occurs to me that though that the argument over the terminology 'illegal' is very obviously split between those who need that terminology to denigrate and diminish those whom they wish to categorise most derogatory way;-and those who see asylum seekers as...well, human beings, and not criminals and terrorists.

The beat will go on.

I am surprised about the confusion about the term illegal, the dictionary definition:

: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful

So if you are not a citizen, and are present in the country without a valid visa, you are not authorised to be present and are thus illegal.

That the asylum seekers may be able to claim residence does not make them lawful at the time of entry, and until such time as they do get a valid visa ipso facto they are without doubt illegal.

Wobbles,

Less than 20% of those that come by boat get to stay in Aus, not the 90% you claim.

As for “What makes you think that Howard's policies towards asylum seekers stopped them from coming?”

South Africa has a porous border with the rest of Africa, and has 10 to 12m illegal immigrants, and in spite of deporting 1000s per month they know that their chances of staying are good.

They know that the chances of getting into Aus are very poor and thus don't take the risk.

Shadow Minister,

The figure from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is that 84% of those who arrive unauthorised in Australia seeking asylum are found to be refugees.

The 90% I used was for those on the Tampa. I don't know where your 20% came from.

It's also not illegal to be a refugee.

Under International and Australian law a person fleeing persecution is an asylum seeker, which is a legal status.

On the other hand, according to the Department of Immigration, people are considered to have arrived in Australia illegally if they "arrive with no travel documents or present documentation which is found to be fraudulent".

This 'criminalisation' of asylum seekers is in conflict with their basic human rights. They may be detained while their cases are evaluated.

Given the circumstances from which most asylum seekers flee: war, chaos and oppressive authorities which hold 'blacklists' of people they will not allow to leave, many asylum seekers have no choice but to arrive in Australia without proper documentation. Others come from countries which do not generally issue identity documents or passports.

When the number of boats coming here seemed to stop, the flow of refugees had reduced globally and now it's increasing (globally) again.

Ginx
It is not a matter of opinion, but simply a fact that under current law a non-citizen who enters Australia without a visa is classified as an unlawful non-citizen.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s14.html

('the migration zone' basically means Australia.)

Whether people are in favour of asylum seekers, and see them as deserving sympathy and support, or against them and see them as bludging interlopers, has got nothing to do with the question of fact as to legality or illegality.

wobbles
Asylum-seeker means someone applying for recognition of refugee status. Refugee means someone who has applied for and been recognised as having refugee status.

Criminalising asylum-seekers for entering the country is not in breach of their basic human rights under current law, because human rights law does not recognise a right to enter a foreign country without a visa.

Perhaps it should but that would make nation-states a whole different ball game. I'm not defending the current situation, I'm just describing what the legal status is. I personally think we should have more refugees, and less so-called welfare handouts generally including less occupational licensing.

bushbasher
My figure of 12% was from the Immigration Department and was for the total population of applicants for refugee status; but it's also now dated. I used to be an immigration lawyer and the overall proportion was pretty constant from year to year; but I see your specific figure of 84% refugee status is no doubt correct for all boat people.

thanks, wing. if you were an immigration lawyer then you can probably also confirm how much the evaluation process is hugely erratic, and hugely stacked against an asylum seeker.

FINALLY. I can post again! PLEASE up the post rate on Articles Graham.

WALy: I think I'm right in suggesting that the High Court of Australia has a wee bit of influence in the rulings it hands down. I thank you for your link;-it certainly looks impressive. But you really need to delve much deeper into legal archives. Google just won't do it.

I'm also bound to say that your posting style of dismissing the views of others one by one, suggests some elevated sense of being the Anointed One Who Knows All.

You don't.

(Very slow to log on. Two attempts).

1) Some have wondered if Australia might become a harsher place if we implemented a tougher refugee stand. It needs to be understood that most countries in our region have much harsher refugee positions than Australia and, not all of them are cold cruel worlds.

The reality is that Australia is, in the long term, far more likely to become a harsher society by adopting a more relaxed refugee program which would, judging by past performance, result in new laws & ‘education’ programs designed to ‘protect’ minority sensitivities.

2) Others have wondered whether we should be a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Frankly, I doubt if us withdrawing would make an iota of difference .

Even without the convention we’d likely be the recipients of boat loads of illegals.
The attraction is our affluence .

And once they had arrived there would be, as now, a hue and cry for us to be ‘humane’ and accept them. There are elements who need to have a bleeding heart cause –and such causes are even more newsworthy and attractive if they entail flouting official positions .Some on the pro-refugee side have already made it known they are prepared to break the law –housing and hiding illegals if need be

"Blame" who to blame for a person who attempts to circumvent Australias right to screen potential asylum seekers (for those who might be carrying infectious diseases, criminal habits or terrorist inclinations)?

by applying a long standing legal maxim, the correct place to lay all "blame" is simple

"Volenti non fit injuria"

anyone who unilaterally decides to attempt a clandestine entry into Australia and suffers as a consequence, has only themselves to blame.

Wobbles,

I was talking about people being granted asylum. Being recognised as a refugee does not get you asylum in Aus.

Try

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html
and
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ESnhla_XYzoC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=asylum+seekers+acceptance+rates&source=bl&ots=pk2X9X79vN&sig=MBHvKb1B-7cW7pspOPwjE2dh4pk&hl=en&ei=qFD-ScTOEJ6ytAOYidXhAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&safe=active#PPA12,M1

With regards the Tampa incident:

"Of the 433 asylum seekers rescued by the Tampa, 131 were immediately resettled in New Zealand. The remaining 302 were processed on Nauru. Of these, 101 were found to be refugees, 14 were resettled as non-refugees, one died and 186 returned home after failing to win refugee status."

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/tampa-asylum-seekers-genuine-refugees-20090328-9ek0.html?page=-1

So 101 of 433 were granted asylum in Aus and 186 returned home. So I fail to see the 90% (232/433 = 54%)

The figures for recognition of refugee status is about 90% for afghans and lower for all other countries.

When the expression illegal refugee is used, it does not mean that it is illegal to be a refugee, rather that the refugee has entered the country illegally. Similar to it not being illegal to be alien, but you can be an illegal alien.

Shadow Minister,

I stand corrected on the final Tampa stats but not the 84% Department of Immigration numbers.

I presume that the only way you can legally claim refugee status is to first arrive in another country with a valid passport and all the other legal permissions as granted by the country that is actively persecuting you.

You can't apply while inside your own country (at a foreign embassy for example) because by definition, a refugee must already be outside their own country to have that status.

Then they would need to pass through Customs after convincing them that they are here for a legitimate reason.

Obviously the majority arriving here do, but those aren't the ones that everybody seems focussed on.

Wobbles,

I have searched the immigration website and cannot find the stats to which you refer.

What I did find though from various different articles on the website is that of those detained, only a small portion are granted residence.

Considering that boat persons made up about 40% in detention, this makes your 84% difficult to swallow. However, if you could point me in the direction of these figures I would stand to be corrected.

Until then I cannot find anything that supports your claim.

Shadow Minister,
As far as I'm aware, DIMIA (now IMMI) do not publish these statistics directly.

During the SIEV-X enquiry they admitted that did not compile such specific statistics but the information will be included in their Departmental Annual Reports http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/ and the number obviously varies from year to year.

Many commentators do however extract this information. Some of it is presented in Paliamentary speeches and some makes it's way into the media http://www.smh.com.au/national/90-of-asylum-seekers-win-refugee-status-20090422-af2d.html?page=-1