Banjo is NOT wrong in describing asylum seekers who are entering Australia by boat or by overstaying visas as illegal, as claimed by Andrew Bartlett.

It is not Banjo, but Andrew Bartlett who is creating “…a false perception that asylum seekers are (not) doing something that is against the law.”

The 1951 Convention does not provide for asylum seekers to go directly to any country. Even those who have been screened by the UNHRC successfully DO NOT get to choose the country they wish to go to. They are supposed to wait until they are accepted by a country, as they did do in the period the Convention was designed to apply to – 58 years ago. Those who drafted and agreed to the Convention could not have envisaged the current asylum scams by economic would-be immigrants.

According to the media, some of those people on the Australian ship in Indonesia have already been processed by UN officials; it is not Australia’s fault if they have been there for some time. Australia has its work cut out with its high intake of processed refugees, and the illegals arriving in boats.

If Andrew Bartlett wishes to continue talking about our ‘obligations’, he should say something about the fact that we are not complying with the Convention regarding the help given to, and the acceptance of, people entering our territory illegally.

As for the article by Ken Parish, it’s just not going to happen. Australia does not have any obligations that are not particular to the Convention. We are already far softer (so soft that we are a bit of a joke with the people smugglers and their clients) than most countries, who have given up and allow illegals to disappear into the wider community because they don’t have a Christmas Island.

The average, non-French-speaking Australian should be insulted by Ken Parish’s use of the word ‘refoule". All the better to fool you with, my friends. But, given that we can all work out that the Orwellian ‘world community’ means that we should not send illegals back to their countries of origin if there is a “…the risk of persecution in their home country …” our Government really needs to analyse just what, if any, risk is present.

In the case of Sri Lankan Tamils, the Sri Lankan Government has won the fight against people who thought they were not first and foremost Sri Lankans, but Tamils, and that country is now safe. These people should be sent back to Sri Lanka; and it is hoped that the Government’s special envoy to Sri Lanka can come to some negotiated solution.

Australia certainly doesn’t need people with centuries of separatism on their minds.

If apologists for illegals want the terms of the outdated 1951 Convention adhered to, they should at least read it. They should also accept that anyone who does get through the net illegally should be returned to their countries if it is safe; or, in the case where it is not been deemed to be safe, kept in detention until it is safe.

The slump in the Rudd Government’s popularity, and the exact same rise in the Coalition’s popularity clearly shows that Australian’s believe that Rudd is simply too soft on illegals.

Many, if not most, of the people espousing nonsense about illegals and so-called refugees were not born when the 1951 Convention was signed. They wouldn’t know a World War and its aftermath, of a Cold War, from a hat full of monkeys. These people should bone up or shut up.

Come on Mr Bartlett, enough of your sophistry. Consider form ‘C’: Application for a Protection (Class XA) Visa (or the current form) and the declaration which must be signed by the applicant. The applicant arrives in Australia with no identification and may have altered his appearance markedly. He is then asked to complete the paperwork and gets to the declaration with its attachments: ‘I have never been convicted of a crime or any offence in any country except as shown in Schedule A’…’I have not been involved in war crimes or crimes against humanity’…’I do not have any spent convictions under any spent convictions legislation in any country or any convictions on my police record’…and on and on it goes. Are we expected to believe that at the last hurdle the applicant will in any way harm his chances of being granted refugee status by making a full and frank confession?

Even question 50 in Form ‘C’ should be enough to cause immigration officials to be circumspect: “You are expected to provide documentary evidence of your identity, nationality and/or citizenship. If you cannot do so, and cannot provide a reasonable explanation of why you cannot, this may lead to doubts about the veracity of your claimed identity, nationality and/or citizenship.” The arrival of groups of people all of whom have no identification should cause our officials to vet each application with great care. However the onus is now on immigration officials to establish, within 90 days, reasons to reject an application. Most clear thinking Australians know that boat people have read the people smuggler’s handbook “How to fool the wantwits in Australia” so a very high percentage of boat people have a successful outcome. They are running rings around us.

Yes Mr Bartlett we do have immigration legislation but pre-dating that is the Australian Constitution which sees our elected leaders vested with the power to act in our interests.

Andrew,
Glad you are posting as I want to ask you something, but will get to that later.

The DIAC term those without valid visas 'unlawfull entrants' or 'unauthorised entrants' whether they arrive by air or sea. 'illegal' means exactly the same. The reason we can detain these people is because they are attempting to enter illegally. We cannot detain those that enter with valid visas, without some other reasonable cause.

Most of those that support people who try to enter Aus illegally prefer other terms that they think are softer and paint the illegals in a better light. I think they deserve to be depicted as the dishonest, liars, bribers and cheats that they are. So 'illegals' it is.

If they were 'bona fide' they would come all the way by air, with valid papers and ask for protection on arrival. Even having to buy a return fare to get a visa is a lot cheaper than paying a smuggler for a spot on a leaky boat. We both know they do not do this because they would not meet the criteria. So being the frauds that they are, they gate crash and try the back door.

I have, without success, been trying to find the number of persons that arrive legally and then seek asylum, I had it before on the DIAC site but now cannot find it. I seem to recall you mentioning it here some time ago, along with the number or percentage that were successful. If you still retain those figures, could you post them please. I wish to compare them with the number and successful percentage of the illegals that apply.

Excellent article with a viable solution. Thanks for that, Ken.

Andrew the ideal situation would be to give the refugees a greater reason to stay in their country of origin. Failing that all 'reasonable' solutions are realistically temporary ones. Skirting the issues.

The idea that they are all or majority are simply fortune seekers is defying reason and human nature. Most would stay 'HOME' if it was a reasonable option.

I'm pleased to note that the author is among the mung bean eating lefties with his Socialist inspired anti rich asylum seeker bias. Clearly because they have $5000, their lives are less deserving, (capitalist swine) . His view is a bit extreme for my humanist perspective.

I do applaud his effort sadly his island solution is problematic. Give the poor conditions in Indonesia why wouldn't those fleeing persecution etc want the best for themselves and their families? An Indonesian camp for years or Australia on a island in better condition for a limited time?

Consider what WILL happen when Indonesia inherits massive numbers of long term refugees Their capacity for generosity is more limited than ours. How soon before the people of Indonesia get fed up with being the 'dumping ground' and 'help' (corruption) refugees to move on to fill our off shore islands.
Add to that the cost of supporting them.

Following the logic of many posters the only solution is to make Australia more onerous than all others. By repudiating all humane and international treaties etc. .Close our tourist offices extolling the wondrous lifestyle here lest the brochures are read by the persecuted. Oh yes Close internet access too.

Conversely why not let these people fill our needs as they earn money doing jobs we won't ? Harvesting picking etc. while they're waiting.

Govt assisted farm facilities add to the Australian economy more than overseas/on islands reducing the costs of supporting them. When the drama at home is over they can be returned (end of their temporary visa) with money in their pockets to start again. Those that have or gain skills needed could apply for residency on a case by case basis.