Pelican,

>>That is a broad assumption you are making Robp. Do you really believe that this is the reason these checks are done - in a secular society like Australia I find that hard to believe given the broad range of migrants here (my father being one of them).<<

I was having a dig at some of the practices (as opposed to the professed strategies) in the migration program. The imigration test that was brought in by Howard being one of them. I wouldn't be surprised if some sweeping judgements based on culture and race were made at an institutional level in the Immigration Department as to the suitability of asylum seekers. This wouldn't be admitted by them or the politicians.

>>Are you advocating that there should be no checks at all? I would worry about someone that was not willing to indicate their true identity or refuse a health screening or a standard criminal records check etc. I have to do those things just to get a job these days.<<

In order to keep the migration intake to a manageable level, there must of course be a rational basis for deciding who stays and who doesn't. I thought Labor's criterion was the best one: allow for more humanitarian visas whilst keeping in detention those that were most likely to be a danger to the Australian community.

>>Most asylum seekers are probably bonafide refugees but if so there should not be any problem in providing a true identity.<<

Some of them have a deep and abiding fear of authorities that could cause them to hide their identities/details. I also accept that some could hide their details to hide some bad aspect about themselves.

"Why do goverments continue to push for population growth either via (immigration or baby bonuses) in a country where water supply and degradation of systems like the Murray Darling continue and where city infrastructures are struggling to cope with burgeoning numbers"

Pretty obviously they've swallowed the "greater GDP equals prosperity" proposition. Of course, when people's material wealth goes up, other things like the human side suffer.

Yvonne;
Here is another article. This time by Paul Sheehan in SMH today.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/paul-sheehan/the-challenge-of-migration/2008/08/03/1217701846375.html

I think I may file this info, for when the subject comes up again, and I think it will.

Pity our politicians won't discuss immigration, and related issues, at election time.

Banjo links to another good article by Sheehan that puts things into perspective very clearly and well.

From the earlier reporting of Labor's policy, I got the sense that humanitarian visas were increasing. Obviously, according to Sheehan, that is wrong. All Labor is doing is getting rid of the backlog of detainees, but is not increasing the humanitarian quota (unless of course it is generating a big news story by letting in 400 Iraqis who were interpreters for the Aussies in the US occupation).

Another interesting point he made is that many migrants have already been let into the country who shouldn't have been due to slack vetting procedures in the past. In my general experience of life, this is typical: the worst offenders get off scot free, while those that are a little bit bad or dodgy get the full treatment from the system (eg by being put in detention for an extended period). All proportion is lost as the human element is being sacrificed by being sandwiched between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

IMO, the true problem is in the imbalance in the whole immigration system because those in authority that can and should do better are too weak or gutless to do the right thing. Or too busy chasing a vote. In the latter case, the problem would only be solved if the bulk of society demanded a better and fairer system.