In the first sentence the author notes distortion of the media, yet he is doing exactly the same thing.

By ommission he fails to say that the figure of 47000 overstayers is a figure at a given time and is not an accumulative figure. We get over 10 million arrivals each year.

Most of the overstayers are very short term as they are tourists who like the place and decide to see more or to enjoy our hospitality. They leave and are replaced by others who decide to stay a bit longer. While here they are still spending money and contributing to our tourist industry and the economy.

If it does become a problem then we can tighten up and impose visa checks and restrictions.

Of course there are a few that are long term and are illegal. They either work underground, or must purchase false identies, thus are criminals. Some get caught up with from time to time and i suspect the immigration dept. knows the most likely places to find them.

Unless we are prepared to employ far more immigration officers and nightly check the visas at all hotels, motels, resorts and boarding houses, etc. we cannot do much about it.

I do not see the overstayers as a major problem As we have records of their details and most leave within a short period.

Divergence: "Sending failed asylum seekers back can be difficult or impossible if it can't be established where they came from or if the home country won't cooperate."

The link you gave doesn't say that. What it does say is the UK government has no idea who was rejected, where they are or what to do about it. Having just returned form the UK, I can assure you this is high on the list of the UK citizens pet peeves. I think "gross incompetence" would best describe their complaint, although some call it "criminal negligence".

Banjo: "Most of the overstayers are very short term as they are tourists who like the place and decide to see more or to enjoy our hospitality"

Unlike other assertions you have made elsewhere Banjo, this one sounds right. And you are also right in that it undermines the entire premise of the article. Well done. But as always it would make it much easier to believe if you provided a citation to back it up.

TheMissus: "I am sure the Tamils will enjoy quicker reconciliation with the Sinhalese if turned over the reponsibility of their protection to the Sri Lankan government."

Yes. I am sure you are. Just as you are sure the boat people can "Just call for a pick up service". http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9658#155108

RobP - Yep, so what? The points I made are what most Australians think, which is why the politicians react the way they do - if they did not, they would react differently, correct?

RStuart – you missed where I said "They get to Indonesia ... by airtravel .."

They can get documents to travel to Indonesia by air, but cannot use them to come to Australia, why?

Many admit that’s how they got there. So some start out with legal documents, some don’t.

If they are dealing with the criminal elements to get on board boats, getting false documents is a trifle.

So why, if they can get false documents, do they still try to come by boat? Possibly because if they come in a group all claiming the same "story", they believe they can thus hide a negative background? Why not go to a refugee camp and go through the process?

Do they come by boat as there is a belief out there that if you touch down on Australian soil, you will get in. (which seems to be correct, how many do we actually reject once they get to our system?)

Or because they want to get here and get on with life and having money they expect to be able to pay to do it and rely on our charity to get them through? Seems plausible?

Trying to twist it such that Australians are the bad guys here, doesn't cut it - we're not going to cop that, some of you might, the majority do not accept that it is our fault or problem.

That’s the country you live in, has barely changed since PM Keeting's days, when the ALP introduced mandatory detention.

rstuart,
This is a place where ones opinion can be posted. I do not normally present how I formed my opinion unless it is queried by others.

My opinion on the overstayers was formed after reading about them on the DIAC website. If someone has a different point of view they are welcome to look up that website, I do not feel inclined at this point. They may even find some numbers of the long tem overstayers and the length of overstaying. My main point is that most are short term.

In relation to the illegal entrants, the reason they attract media and peoples attention is simply because they are frauds, liars and cheats who impose themselves on us and con us into giving them permanent residency. People do not like being taken for a ride by those falsely pretending to be what they are not, and using any sort of act to get to our shores.

They fly to Malayasia, for which they need a passport and visa, and there is no reason why they cannot get a visa to enter Aus legally and then apply for protection. We issue thousands of visas a year to many coming from the same countries. The simple fact is that the illegals do not because they know they will not qualify as refugees and we can send them back, as we would have their identies.

So they take the more expensive and perilous route by sea, to enter via the back door, destroying their identies en route, thus their home countries will not accept them without valid identity. Some even put their families to this risk. They are not people of good character.

If you want to see the type of antics they get up to when confronted by our security, look at the link below.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f04.htm#top

TheMissus,
you are absolutely right.
The problem in Sri Lanka needs to be understood . What really happened?All this talk of genocide is purely inflammatory.
There are 3 million Tamils in that island state. 2million are happy and doing well .They didnt support the breakaway Elam revolution. They arent discriminated against. It is even possible for them to occupy high positions of authority in government.One of them rose to be Foreign Minister no less and that fairly recently but he was assassinated. Guess by who? A Tamil acting under the orders of Vellupillai Prabhakaran, the LTTE supremo.
How would we react if suddenly any community living in the north claimed the NT and parts of northern Queensland to form a breakaway independent country? It wasnt all that long ago when we heard Ali Bashir of the JI actually make that claim.
Well, in Sri Lanka the northern Tamils began to tear that small island state to bits by assassinations and civil war that lasted over 20 years. and took tens of thousands of lives and depleted the economic reserves of that poor country that fought tooth and nail to preserve its territorial integrity. Genocide indeed!!
What is happening now is that the Sri Lankans are carefully processing those likely to have been involved . Thousands have already been released to go home. The LTTE cadres with their families have fled the country and those with the money are using LTTE transport to reach other countries asking for refuge. They started it all and lost and now their propoganda machine has begun to put their own spin on things. Many guerrila chiefs like the so-called "Alex" are very dangerous criminals. His real name is Sanjeev Kulaendrarajah. He was deported from Canada where he was arrested for running criminal extortionist gangs and street fighting. The Mounties are looking for his brother who is on the run. He too is to be deported. How many others like them are there? We need to process them all VERY CAREFULLY.

Sorry rstuart,

The link doesn't discuss why failed asylum seekers are not being removed, but it does show that only about 20% of claimes were recognised as genuine in the UK for that time period, even after appeal, and a failed asylum seeker only had about a 20% chance of being deported. The UK's National Audit Office is saying that it now might be as low as a 10% chance for a newly failed asylum seeker.

I should have linked to this briefing paper

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/110

"66% of failed asylum seekers who have exhausted the appeals process require emergency travel documentation", i.e., the home country has to be willing to cooperate. "[An additional] 12% are not removable at all for policy and practical reasons (Iraq, Zimbabwe, and Burundi)".

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/110

Sheer incompetence may indeed be a factor, but this Guardian column discusses just the sort of case I am talking about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/18/failed-asylum-seeker-iran-detention#start-of-comments

"But Rostami can't be removed, because he has no passport or ID card, and Iran will not take him without some proof of his identity and that he is in truth, Iranian." There is an impasse because Rostami is refusing to cooperate with the redocumentation process.

You might also think of the Cornelia Rau case here. Rau is an Australian permanent resident and thus entitled to live here, although no one in the Immigration Department knew that at the time she was detained. She is also a German citizen, but the German consular officials refused to take her because she had no papers.