‘What it is about Australia that makes us so alarmist about our relatively small number of asylum seekers.’

Well that’s an easy question to answer, Peter van Vleit. In fact it befuddles me as to why you feel the need to ask it.

There is enormous potential for onshore asylum seeker movement to greatly escalate. This would be disastrous for all concerned. So arrivals have to be dealt with in such a way as to deter others from coming. If Australia is seen to be soft, we’ll be on the receiving end of hundreds or perhaps thousands of leaky boats.

This was about to happen in 2001 at the time of the Tampa incident. Howard’s strong policy shift was absolutely necessary at that point in time.

Rudd’s weakening of this policy, at the same time that there are increasing causal factors of asylum seekers heading our way, was just absurd in the extreme.

It would be nice if we could welcome asylum seekers with open arms. But of course we can’t. If we did, we would literally open the proverbial floodgates.

This line of discussion has been conducted on OLO numerous times. But it always seems to stop when I ask hard questions like:

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 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?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8841#140011

The notion that those in Australia that desire an end to the onshore asylum seeker saga have an ‘island fortress mentality’ is just absurd.

Of COURSE Australia should have rigorous border control!

But of course we should be playing our part in global refugee issues as well….by way of increasing international aid and increasing our offshore refugee intake.

.
Time and time again, I’ve seen articles like this appear on OLO. Apart from (former Democrats senator) Andrew Bartlett, I don’t think an author has ever come back and partaken in extended debate or defended their position to any significant extent.

I hope Peter van Vliet will defend his position here, perhaps starting with responses to the question in my previous post.

Thank you for continuing to bring up this debate. I really feel dissappointed when people seem so threatened by assylum seekers. We all travelled as immigrants to Australia, or we were Indigenous people. We were exposed to predjudices and called names like 'wogs', because we were from Eastern Europe or looked different and we were seen as different.

Assylum seekers are families with stories and have a lot to offer Australia. We are global citizens and we are all facing adverse global difficulties. Who are we keeping out? Why do you think the people are so bad? People need homes, just as we did, when we came to this country. Many people are coming due to conflicts and lack of safety. Australia has such a small amount of people coming to our shores, yet we still worry about sharing the land.

Are you still worried about Europeans and other immigrants in this country? Are you still threatened by people from different nationalities? I can not help but see the racism that stops people accepting assylum seekers.

I love the second verse to the Australian Anthem...

"For those who've come across the sea, we've boundless plains to share..."

“Hysteria” has nothing to do with illegal immigrants, refugees or whatever you want to call them. The whole business is a huge con perpetrated on weak Australian governments more interested in sucking up to the corrupt United Nations and wet do-gooders like this author than they are in the welfare of Australia and Australians.

There was no tragedy at Ashmore Reef: illegals blew themselves up with petrol. There is not an increase in asylum seeking because of an increase in conflict: the increase is because of the Rudd Government’s complete abrogation of border protection and sensible detention and return policies.

Rudd sent a clear message to all would-be illegal entrants that all they now need do is turn up with the help of people smugglers and those nice people in expensive patrol boats will escort them to Christmas Island for a short stay before they are taken to live permanently in Australia. While this is happening, the colleagues of nice people providing the tourist escort service are being killed in the country the tourists have left.

Under the Rudd Labor Government, immigration appeals from people who would once have been knocked back by magistrates have reduced to a mere trickle because the magistrates have opened the gates to just about everybody who wants to come to live in Australia.

This apologist (for illegal entry) claims that immigration makes the world tick. But, putting aside the fact that Australia now has twice its sustainable population, he didn’t start off by talking about orderly, invited immigrants; he concerned himself with illegal arrivals. And let’s not hear anymore of that rubbish about people claiming to be asylum seekers being allowed to come any way they please!

“The non-government sector must ensure our government is held to account and is fulfilling its human rights obligations.”

The non-government sector can take a running jump, along with Peter van Vliet. They don’t run Australia, and they are not answerable to the people of Australia.

All people arriving by boat should be sent back to their places of origin.

It could perhaps be that both LIB and Labs are using it for a political beatup considering that the numbers involved are so small compared to the 300,000 that come in as legal migrants, each year. Purely as a supply of cheap labour for big business and to provide and wider tax base of the government of the moment.

I think we should recall what happened after the Vietnamese conflict?
I was working for the Health Commission at the time, and was helping
open the mail. Not my normal job, but just to help out. I opened
one from someone in the NT who had circulated the letter nationally.

'... We can expect 27,000 asylum seekers (boat people) over the next three years, and I haven't sufficient quarantine facilities or staff to cope with this number ...'

Gareth Evans the same time was quoting on TV, '...We can expect only
9000 over the next 3 years...'

Some Iraqi man was stating in the media recently he'd been in Indonesia for 10 years waiting to get legal refugee passage through the UN, and of course he had family he wished to bring over once settled. I can understand his frustration, ten years is a long time out of anyone's life. He would do anything to get to Australia.

We know that new asylum seekers need compassionate treatment. Especially women and children. But I can understand that people
are concerned, do we have the appropriate infrastructure to cope.
Can we not somehow set up better and hastier selection procedures and of course health facilities not only in Australia but in Indonesia or their expected embarkation ports.

Italy is now turning back boats. And France had problems a few
years ago with illegal immigrants trying to get to UK via the channel
tunnel.

We are not an Island and have extensive shore lines. Chinese illegals were caught on the Central North Coast, with phone numbers to call once they arrived. Some were spotted stranded on a sand bank dressed in suits and carrying suitcases waiting for low tide. One has to feel sorry for them though.

I think the concern is that one legal immigrant or asylum seeker
will then result into ten more family members arriving. And if non
can speak English, the expense of settling them in, health risks
and not letting criminals in with the genuine ones.