“3. John Howard didn't stop the boat people from trying to reach Australia…”

Yes he did, almost entirely. From a very ominous build-up at the time of the Tampa incident to a tiny trickle. The easing of international conflicts was no doubt a factor. But as far as Oz was concerned, Howard’s policy was the overwhelming factor in the arrival rate.

“The recent reported increase in refugee and potential asylum seeker numbers is a product of continuing and increased conflict, and has little to nothing to do with the Rudd government's adoption of a more humane approach to asylum seekers.”

How completely bonkers was it for Rudd to ease the policy at the same time that we saw increasing conflicts?? A strong border-protection policy absolutely needed to remain in place. We had reached the situation where just about no one was left in detention and no one was on the way. So the policy was hardly applying to anyone! It didn’t matter if it was seen as being slightly less humane than Rudd’s policy.

If a slightly more humane policy means that a lot more people mobilise and get caught up in the messy asylum-seeking refugee-determination fracas, then effectively we are seeing a considerable deterioration of humaneness, or at least of humaneness on part of the Australian government.

“I also see that Turnbull's in the news tonight demanding that Rudd does more to stop boat people reaching Australia, exactly as I predicted early in the thread. How despicable.”

Huh? What exactly are you branding as despicable?

Good questions Cornflower.

And good to see CJ actually address them directly and systematically. That’s more than he’s done for some of the questions that I’ve asked him on this topic on other threads, despite my repeated attempts.

His answer to your last question is particularly telling:

“I think that the only way to deter people smuggling is to enlist via diplomacy the cooperation of the authorities in the countries in which they operate. I understand that's exactly what Rudd and his government are up to right now.”

This is the ONLY way of deterring people smuggling or asylum seeking?? Oh please! If asylum seekers and people smugglers see Australia as a soft touch, then we’ll get thousands of people heading our way, end of story. And if all arrivals are allowed to just live in mainstream society straight up, then the ‘soft touch’ message will spread around the world like wildfire.

Come on CJ, the detention regime in Australia evolved out of necessity, not because of some innate hatred of refugees. Stopping the arrival of onshore asylum seekers from reaching large numbers is of the utmost importance. It has GOT to be kept under tight control, ideally reduced to zero and absolutely kept to a very low level.

Sure, diplomacy is part of a solution. But until we can be totally confident that no asylum seekers are going to be assisted by other countries to get to Australia, then we MUST maintain a vigorous deterrence regime.

The idea of letting asylum seekers move freely in our society is fraught with problems, as has been borne out in Europe. Abscondment, assistance to evade authorities by sympathisers, the cost to the police and taxpayer to find absconders, the resultant hardening of community attitudes against asylum seekers ..and politicians, illegal workers taking jobs of citizens of the host country, etc, etc.

There is no way that we should we be letting asylum seekers enter mainstream society until they have been found to be genuine refugees.

“I see that the same old canards are being trotted out by those who wish to demonise” any one who questions the “bona fides” of those masquerading as ”asylum seekers”.

They are claiming :
1. “The vast majority of 'boat people' who came to Australia… were subsequently found to be bona fide refugees …(not) economic immigrants in disguise !
---a) These demonisers would know better if they put away their comic books and got out into the real world. For if they took this daring move, they would be surprised to learn that:
---Some of these ‘refugees’ have been through --processing-- three or four times and keep coming back till they find an administration gullible enough buy their –well rehearsed -- stories.
---b) Many ‘refugees’ shortly after gaining residency return to their ‘much feared’ former homelands for rest, recreation or recruitment of further ‘refugees’.

They have also claimed that :
2. “Malaysia and Indonesia, don’t provide “asylum”.
---a) But what do you call it if someone --resides-- in Malaysia or Indonesia for seven years or more –if, not asylum?
---b) That “asylum seekers aren't 'country shoppers'” …but, what do you call it if they pass-by, or through, some 20 countries– and not once seek residency status – perhaps the social welfare system in the transit countries wasn’t to their liking?

And there is this:
3. “John Howard didn't stop the boat people…(it was) a temporary decline in the various conflicts”.
---Neither is correct, the recent increase is likely to have more to do with bleeding heart idiots who have -- outed-- Australia as a soft target .

While I'm aware that some people here may have a deep, unmet psychological need to emulate Errol Flynn and play Robin Hood ( or even, Maid Marian) . I entreat them if they have such fantasies , to satisfy them through their own charitable works – after all, charity, traditionally arose from individual sacrifice & generosity. Rather than, seeking to assuage such cravings by writing blank cheques willy-nilly on behalf of the community.

Refugees’ rights
1. protection from being forcibly returned to a country where they would be at risk of serious human rights abuses
2. protection from discrimination
3. the right to identity and travel documents
4.the rights to work, housing and education
5. protection from penalties for illegal entry
6. the right to freedom of movement
7.are not returned to a country where they would be at risk of serious human rights abuses
8.are not prohibited from entering a country to seek asylum
9.have access to fair procedures to determine whether they are refugees, and to lawyers, interpreters and organizations that can help them
10. have access to UNHCR
11. are not unlawfully detained
12. have basic economic, social and cultural rights, for example, to education and health care
13. are not separated from their families

Who is an asylum-seeker?
An asylum-seeker is someone who has left their country in search of international protection, and is waiting for a state or the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, to decide on their claim for refugee status. While they are waiting for a final decision on their status, they cannot be returned to their country of origin.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL33/001/2007/en/d511d89e-d3c4-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/pol330012007en.html

According to Amnesty International In 2007 there was an estimated 12 million refugees and asylum-seekers in the world – about 0.2 per million,
Now there are an estimated 14.2 refugees in the world, roughly 0.21% of the world’s population.
Refugees and asylum-seekers are going to developed countries, arount to 50 countries of the world, if we spread them equaly to all 50 countries then we will have 284.000 refugees per country, .
Logicaly Australia should be the number one country, worldwide in asylum seekers, as she is number one in migrants.
But AUSTRALIA DOES NOT UNDERTAKE ITS INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES! In 2001-02 we had 8400 asylum seeker applicants, while in 2004-05 the number of applications had fallen to around 3200.
It is seemed to me that many australians care only for their personal benefits and nothing else and they press with many ways for less asylum seekers.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

The Pied Piper
Thank you for the link and your friendship, I am sorry if yesterday I drived you nuts, it was not into my intension!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Ludwig, while I think we agree that Australia should reduce or eliminate its net population growth for ecological reasons, on the issue of asylum seekers we are evidently poles apart. I suspect it's mostly because I'm a greenie who's also a humanist with a libertarian streak, while you seem to be a greenie who's basically misanthropic with an authoritarian streak.

My position is that we should limit Australia's population as much as is possible with respect to environmental and economic constraints, human rights and our obligations under International Law. Yours seems to be that we should limit Australia's population by making it really, really difiicult for bona fide refugees to come to Australia by boat.

You don't seem to get anywhere near as excited about the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who reside in Australia currently, having flown in and overstayed their visas. While you claim to be opposed to the 'Skilled Migration' programme that brings in hundreds of thousands more, you don't appear to devote much commentary to it here - nor even the idiotic 'Baby Bonus'.

Nope - it's a few thousand asylum seekers who may try and come to Australia by boat who are the problem.

I think that the Australian Government is legally and morally obligated to accept as many genuine refugees as we can reasonably accommodate. One thing that is certain is that the numbers of bona fide refugees who seek to come here will only increase in coming years, due to conflict and (most likely) climate change. We need to address this reality with a set of policies and protocols that go somewhere beyond building a metaphorical fence around Australia and keeping as many poor brown people out as we can.

As for Turnbull being despicable - in this case it's because he shamelessly blew the dog-whistle that I predicted early in the thread.

And you responded very well - not to mention those whose company you keep when it comes to 'boat people'. Shame on you all.