There must be an urgent review into Australia's border protection laws to deter asylum seekers from making the dangerous trip to Australia, says acting opposition Leader Julie Bishop (Cairns Post 22/9).

On Sunday 54 asylum seekers were pulled from a stricken boat. This takes the number of people intercepted to 1620 since the border protection laws were eased last year.

"Rudd should stop blaming everybody and everything else and take responsibility for changing the border protection laws", she said.

OK so we've been over this subject numerous times on OLO. But I believe that if something's rotten, then you've got to keep at it and not just let stinking dogs lie!

I hope that the Opposition sees fit to grind Rudd's nose into the dust over this issue.

In conjunction, I dearly hope they also see fit to increase our international aid effort directed at the causes of refugeeism, they increase our refugee intake within a much-reduced total immigration intake and they develop a population and sustainability policy for this country.

Come on you Libs. You've got the greatest opportunity to develop policies that will really set you apart from the Ruddiculous course that this country is currently on, that will resonate with the populace and that will secure our future instead of destroying it!

Get ye act together!!

C'mawwn Julie!!

Who's with me on this?

Ludwig

<< OK so we've been over this subject numerous times on OLO. But I believe that if something's rotten, then you've got to keep at it and not just let stinking dogs lie! >>

There's nothing rotten, dear Ludwig, in Australia continuing to honour its international and regional obligations and resettle a miniscule proportion of the world's refugees.

UNHCR figures for 2008 indicate that Australia ranked 51st in the number of refugees it resettled, with 20,919 refugees (0.2% of the global total). In per capita terms, Australia came in at 69th.

The figures also revealed that, at the end of 2008, Australia had just 0.3% of the world’s asylum seekers, 2,159 out of a global total of 827,323. Of the 535,950 asylum seekers recognised as refugees around the world during 2008, just 1,845 (0.3%) were in Australia.

Let's have some perspective here, Ludwig. Sure, the number of boat arrivals has increased, but it is not due solely to changes in government policy. Sri Lanka has become desperately unsafe and many parts of Afghanistan are more dangerous than ever. Australia is not unique. The number of asylum seekers taking to boats is increasing the world over. We have the capacity to process and resettle the small numbers that are arriving here and the only humane response is to do so.

<< In conjunction, I dearly hope they also see fit to increase our international aid effort directed at the causes of refugeeism, they increase our refugee intake within a much-reduced total immigration intake and they develop a population and sustainability policy for this country. >>

I'm in total agreeance on all these points, as we've established previously. :)

1620
OMFG we are being invaded. Call out the militia. Man the barricades.

Get some perspective and stop sounding like a meanspirited, racist, xenophobic hillbilly.

Ludwig: << Who's with me on this? >>

Certainly not me. Wow, a whole 1620 boat people in a year!

They're obviously a much bigger threat to Australia than the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers and visa overstayers who arrive by plane, the bogus students who sign up for pretend courses in order to qualify for Howard's residency program, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of 'skilled' immigrants per annum that are envisaged in order that our population might reach 35M by 2050.

Ludwig, when you go off on your refugee-bashing thing, I sometimes wonder why you don't post nearly as much about the vast majority of immigrants.

Ludwig,

How can I go past what Bronwyn said.

Do you really think that a Liberal govt would significantly increase O/S aid to where it's needed? Have a good look at the history. Ms Bishop is playing politics trying to tap into the low level racism in this country.

I'd like to see the Libs policy commitments in in these areas. Not airy fairy ("non core promises") but real thought out options. Get their think tanks to do something useful for a change like solutions.

And while I'm about it the LABOR govt (note my words, not Kevin Rudd)
should get their act together too and start planning.
Like most western governments Aust's percentage of o/s aid as part of GDP is behind others and not well focused.

Dear Ludwig,

I'm not with you on this one.

According to Malcolm Fraser,

"Seventy-one countries accept refugees and
asylum seekers. Of the 71, Australia is
ranked 32nd. On a per capita basis, we are
ranked 38th... Tanzania hosts one refugee
for every 76 Tanzanians. Britain hosts one
for every 530 Britons. Australia hosts one
refugee for every 1,583 Australians..."

The Libs are claiming we're being swamped
by hordes of boat people. That's not true.

While Europe takes in asylum seekers by the
hundreds of thousands, by contrast we take in
less than 5,000. Iran and Pakistan each host
more than one million refugees. The real burden
of assisting refugees is borne by developing
countries, certainly not Australia.

Malcolm Fraser says:

"False claims about asylum seekers have
been made over a number of years. They have
created an uncharitable and harsh view of asylum
seekers in the minds of many Australians. They have
not been challenged...
The rhetoric of border protection is rhetoric
unrelated to the reality..."

I am so impressed!

I saw the post count was up to six, so I checked in, expecting the usual rants with the usual references to bleeding hearts, do-gooders, illegals, queue-jumpers, etc, etc.

But to my utter amazement, there they were - four wonderfully sane and reasonable voices. To mikk, CJ, examinator and Foxy, I salute you all. You've made my day!

A big warm hug for you, Foxy.

And good to see you back, CJ, as always.

onya? yes indeed But I can not say what .
Julie is a pain in the bottom.
With zero doubt as unpopular within her party as outside it.
So very many know this, from within her party.
A golden shower for Julie yes indeed onya Julie.
Any chance this total failure can be replaced before the election, come to think about it I have a list.
It is long but the first step in rebuilding the conservative movement.
15 golden showers for a better future for that party

Be careful what you wish for Ludwig.

I cannot see Julie B or any of her cohorts pushing a strong sustainability agenda despite the politicising about asylum seekers.

Wayne Swan recently came out suggesting that Australia's population would grow to 34M by 2050 - even higher than India's growth rates.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/growth-head-and-shoulders-above-india-20090922-g0m6.html

Ridiculous when you think of our water situation and the rampant growth of our largest cities and we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the US, Europe and Britain.

I think we should change our immigration policy to a one-in one-out basis if we are to seek sustainability with obvious humanitarian responses to asylum seekers.

We should also rid ourselves of middle class welfare in the form of baby bonuses. Tax relief for the lower income earners is all that should be necessary in a modern economy IMO.

Bronwyn Bronwyn Bronwyn, how on earth can you condone people jumping in leaky boats and making the awfully risky trip across the open sea to Australian waters, to try their luck in being able to stay here?

How can you?

Surely there is a much better way of doing our bit for the world's desperate people.

How can you possibly support Rudd in his weakened border protection policy that, despite whatever other drivers of asylum seeking there might be, has undoubtedly added to this horrible onshore asylum seeking movement (horrible for those caught up in it)?

I don't get it at all Bronwyn.

You agree that we need to boost our international refugee efforts, but it seems to me you just brush over this and are hell-bent on supporting the continuation of hazardous boat-people movement to our northern waters.

The number of arrivals is tiny compared to global refugee movements or to the numbers that would come here if our border protection policies were to be considerably further weakened.

So in the bigger picture, in terms of the numbers of people involved, it would surely be eminently sensible to strive to completely stop this movement, which Howard had effectively done, and redirect the enormous costs involved into our international aid efforts....where it would be enormously more effective in dealing with refugee issues at their sources, or in boosting our offshore refugee program.

It seems to me, with the greatest of respect, that your concept of perspective in this debate is highly off-track.

"Be careful what you wish for Ludwig. I cannot see Julie B or any of her cohorts pushing a strong sustainability agenda despite the politicising about asylum seekers."

Quite so Pelican. I admit I'm on a totally unrealistic wishful thinking fantasy ride here! No chance in the universe of Ms Bishop or the Libs realistically addressing sustainability.

And yes I was of course utterly disgusted by Wayne Swan regarding his recent comments on our population projections.

Dear Ludwig,

Malcolm Fraser, on the Howard Government:

"We now know that many of the things we have
been told about asylum seekers and boat people
are untrue. The most notorious claim was repeated
many times: that asylum seekers were throwing their
children overboard. We were told these were not
the sort of people who should be allowed to find
a home in Australia. In a most tortuous fashion the
truth emerged and that claim is now known to be
false. We know many people in the defence machine
and in government departments knew it to be false.
We know the then defence minister knew it to be false.

How is it that the truth did not emerge? Quite apart from
the blatant unseemly deception, it represents an
extraordinary breakdown in government administration..."

Ludwig, you question the safety of people coming by boat.
People fleeing terror have no choice but to flee to other
countries to find protection. They can't be penalised
for their means of arrival in a country, however
irregular that arrival may be. Malcolm Fraser
says: - " Article 14 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other
countries asylum from persecution." "The 1951 Refugee
Convention makes it clear governments should not
discriminate against asylum seekers. All asylum seekers
should be treated in the same manner, no matter how they
arrived in Australia."

Fraser corrects the Howard Government's stand
on mandatory detention, " We are told there is no
alternative to mandatory detention. That is not true.
Australia is the only Western country that mandatorily
and without appeal detained all asylum seekers, including
women and children, while their claims were heard.

Mandatory detention was very expensive, at $120 a day
per refugee. Community-based alternatives were found
internationally and within the Australian parole system.
In Sweden, which took as many asylum seekers as Australia
despite a population half Australia's size, detention was
used only to establish a person's identity and to conduct
criminal screening..."

The current Libs rhetoric of border protection is rhetoric
unrelated to the reailty!

Well said Foxy.

Helps to be reminded of the rhetorical distortions that were the mark of the Howard Government and understand that the Liberal Opposition has yet to learn from the past.

Of course none of this excuses the equally delusory track the Rudd government appears to be on regarding climate, sustainability, pollution and population.

What we need is a genuine Opposition that is able to ensure that the current federal government does govern for the good of Australia rather than make hollow claims to do so.

I'm with you on this one Ludwig, for everyone knows that the
present govt is simply playing politics, to satisfy the whims
of the many gullible bleading hearts in Australia, as we have seen
on this thread.

The 1951 Convention is long out of date and is being misused
by people who seek economic migration, for things are tough
in the third world. In Europe they now have huge social
problems because of all of this.

Meantime yes, the population in Australia will continue to
increase, as in the East, building houses for ever more people,
is a major industry. So row on row sardine cans, one next
to the other, is the future for Eastern States suburbia.

AS the Govt wants to win the next election, they need jobs
and the building industry, employing a milllion or so, is
what keeps them going. New migrants all need houses.

Luckily I have my 1200 acres patch of good dirt, a long
way from all you lot :)

I'm with Lugwig.

What part of, "these people are not refugees." do some people not understand?

If you pay someone tens of thousands of US dollars to get you out of your own country, then more to smuggle you across numerous borders, then pay someone more tens of thousands of dollars to cross a sea to a country not of the same religion, where they consider the people of that country to not be human (they are not Muslim therefore not human), having crossed numerous countries of the same religion as yourself where you would easily fit in.

THEN, YOU ARE NOT A REFUGEE!

Simplest & cheapest solution. Send them back to their country of origin & let them apply to immigrate. The same as everybody who wishes to immigrate has to do.

Other than that, sink 'em on the high seas.

Ludwig

<< So in the bigger picture, in terms of the numbers of people involved, it would surely be eminently sensible to strive to completely stop this movement, which Howard had effectively done .. >>

The problem is, Ludwig, that 'stopping' this movement of people in effect means either turning back unsafe boats and risking drownings, warehousing asylum seekers in appalling limbo conditions in Indonesia or Malaysia, or returning them back home to danger and likely death in Sri Lanka or Afghanistan.

This is the reality of Howard's policy and the same madness - through the Government deployment of the ADF and AFP and Australia's financial support of the Indonesian Government and the International Organization for Migration - is only further gathering pace under Rudd. It's all shrouded in so much secrecy that no-one really knows how many deaths these policies are contributing to.

The argument that stopping boats will save lives is a complete furphy. The exact opposite is the case. Stopping boats causes death and misery. It's cruel and inhumane and it's why I'll never agree, dear Ludwig, to your simplistic bleatings for Australia to do so. :)

As everyone here, apart from Yabby, has pointed out to you, the numbers we're dealing with are small and quite within Australia's capacity to deal with, provided we simultaneously adopt the migration and tax policies you and Pelican have mentioned here.

And as for Julie Bishop ever having any real solutions, what a joke. She has no real grasp of policy and can only ever parrot ideas she's lifted from others. 'Onya Julie'? I don't think so.

Oh Foxey,
You are so right, they did not throw the children overboard !

They scuttled the boat under them !

Then if you look closely at the photos you will see that Australian sailors had to jump in to save them.

Lets get one thing straight they are not refugees or asylum seekers.
How did they get to Indonesia ?
The illegal immigration route is by air to Malaysia, boat to Indonesia
bus to southern Java and then boat to Australia.

They were no longer refugees once the entered the first safe country
after leaving their homeland.

If you arrive in Australia without a visa you are sent back.
Why don't they do the same with boat arrivals ?
The boats master should apply for pratique and if it is refused he
should depart the port of entry.

Ludwig, Ludwig, Ludwig,

It's time for Australia to face the facts we have Party governments in this country and it is their collectively agreed policies that are at issue no the personalities per se.

Personalising the subject to the person tends to absolve the party from their collective decisions. i.e. blame the individual excuse.
So long as we do that we encourage members to simply say "well I didn't agree to it" and that is the end of it. Then we wonder why changes of policy are so hard.

I hold all elected members for their party's policies. It is inconsistent on one hand claim allegiance to the party decisions but deny responsibility for the same as an individual.

As the spokesperson for Liberal policy she must also be responsible for policies in her time. She agreed to support Howard's regime therefore her current utterances are in that context of the party and its historical voting pattern (hers included).

In this way parties become like corporations and according to organisational practice it's continuance comes first and thereby avoid responsibility by sacrificing (scapegoating) the individual when it's the party policy at fault.
BTW under corporate law individuals can no longer claim corporate anonymity.
Both are responsible not just the personality.

Pursuant to your penultimate complaint I suspect you are under estimating "desperate people do desperate things" remember people were known to be hung for stealing a loaf of bread. In short deterrents have never worked with desperate people.

The environment these people come from are worse than when the Howard Liberal government reigned.

NB . Note the wording Howard didn't do it on his own any more than Hitler did.

True the risk of boating people here is unacceptable exploitism etc. But don't the criminal is the traffickers not the refugees. Punish the right culprits. Change the reason the refugees left but treating them is a bit like beating a wayward dog once it returns, then wondering why it won't come back or hates you.

Perhaps more objective solution based thought required.

*The argument that stopping boats will save lives is a complete furphy. The exact opposite is the case. Stopping boats causes death and misery.*

Not so Bronwyn, but perhaps the argument is just over your head :)

For letting boats in, encourages even more boats, which means even
more risk.

But I know, I know. As a bleeding and compassionate heart, you've
pointed out that rational thought should not interfere with
emotion.

Fact is that there are 1 billion people or more, doing it tough in
the third world and we can't take them all. The system of first
boat past the post, is an incredibly unfair method of selecting refugees
that we do take. One would think that you as a woman with
children you would be concerned about that, but as a tv bleeding heart,
perhaps they are not showing you enough of the pictures of those
refugees in camps, missing out, who don't have two cents to bribe
anyone.

Bronwyn, its a sweet and caring heart that you have, but totally
illogical.

Ludwig must be gratified that at last his trolling has reeled in a few of his hateful and/or heartless cohorts. At least Yabby's consistent in his view that the 1951 Convention is out of date - although of course until such time that it is modified or until Australia withdraws from it, we are legally bound to accept bona fide refugees who claim asylum in Australian territory.

Jayb and Bazz are talking bulldust, of course. It doesn't matter how much money people have paid to escape, nor how many countries through which they pass that are not signatories to the UN Convention, so long as they fit the UN definition of a refugee they are entitled by international law to seek asylum in countries such as Australia that are signatories to the Convention.

Mind you, all of this demonising of boat people is a complete furphy and distraction from the much larger problem of visa overstayers, illegal immigrants and government policies designed to promote population growth.

Finally, I'll repeat the point that Ludwig ignored earlier - why does he focus on a relative handful of boat people when Australia's population is being increased - legally and illegally - at a much higher rate by so many more immigrants who arrive by more conventional means?

CJ Morgan,
Why is it if you arrive in Australia by air without visa or
even if you do have a visa and they think you intend to work contary
to the visa you have you are sent back but not if you arrive by sea ?

You are right, the biggest rort is the study visa. The govt is remiss
in not checking the validity of a number of the so called schools.

Never the less if you are to take immigrants then if you do not
control it you will have that image of a 10,000 ton ship arriving in Italy
with standing room only arriving in Darwin or somewhere.

this thread has brought out the usual bunch of leftist White-haters as Ludwig is accused of meanspiritedness, racism, xenophobia, refugee-bashing and hillbillyism (made that last term up), while I detected none of this in his posts. Maybe the haters can point out to me where he acted in these accused manners. More likely they can't.
Rather than sensibly debate the subject, they attack those who dare to have a different view from their pinko feel-good pipe-dreams. They just love to shove their On-Line-Opinion down other throats.
I look forward to some insults from the 'usual suspects' as I, too, dare to hold a different view. So, come on you jokes!

Yabby

<< For letting boats in, encourages even more boats, which means even more risk. >>

Granted, there's a small element of truth in this but it's the push factors, not the pull factors, which predominantly determine the numbers arriving at any one time. Even though there's a spike at present, it's still a trickle compared to what's happening elsewhere and not in any danger of becoming the deluge that you and Ludwig worry your little heads about. The Indian Ocean will always act as a vast natural barrier to most asylum seekers.

<< But I know, I know. As a bleeding and compassionate heart, you've pointed out that rational thought should not interfere with emotion. >>

Bl..dy hell, Yabby. Where did I say that? I agree, my argument that immigration policy should not increase the level of pain and hardship suffered by asylum seekers is one based on empathy and compassion, something I'd suggest doesn't trouble you very often. But, it's also a rational argument. Sending asylum seekers back to danger and death is not making the world any safer. Besides, it creates resentment towards Australia which will eventually have negative repercussions.

<< ... as a tv bleeding heart, perhaps they are not showing you enough of the pictures of those refugees in camps, missing out, who don't have two cents to bribe anyone. >>

I'm very familiar with the horror of refugee camps, Yabby, and have often described it here on OLO. You're completely deluded if you think it's fairer to send back those who've already arrived on our doorstep, quite probably to their deaths, and to then take in those from camps instead. There's no queue and contrary to what you say bribing of officials is rife. Those who get out of camps are not necessarily those who've been there the longest, but those who can pay off the right people. There's nothing fair about any of that, but then you aren't really interested in fairness. You're selfishly preoccupied with guarding your own patch and to hell with the rest.

Oops MAJOR ERRATUM (wrong version posted.) My last paras should have read (need more coffee)
>>"Pursuant to your penultimate complaint I suspect you are under estimating "desperate people doing desperate things". Remember people were known to be hung for stealing a loaf of bread yet it didn't stop stealing. In short deterrents have never worked against desperate people.

Aren't the only criminals here the traffickers not the refugees. Punish the right culprits. Change the reason the refugees left.
Imprisoning them for doing what ISN'T ILLEGAL is a bit like beating a wayward dog once it returns,then wondering why it won't respond to us in the future or even hates us."<<

Yabby
Why do you always revert to 'put downs' to make a point? Either they are strong enough to stand on their own or they're probably wrong.

Given the above correction perhaps you can show me where in history deterrents against desperate people has worked?

What about the international law/treaties, are you suggesting we should thumb our noses against them?

Are you happy about the probable consequences of primary industry trade retaliation and worse?

True you and I might not see the consequences but our children probably will.

I'm sorry old boy but this is 21st century and it's far more nuanced than the 1960's 'Fortress Australia' mentality.

*but it's the push factors, not the pull factors, which predominantly determine the numbers arriving at any one time*

Err not so, for the evidence shows that the boat trade virtually
came to a stop, once the word got out that Howard meant business
and it was not worth their while. The refugee camps were full before,
then and now.

Now the word is getting out that Australia is a soft touch, so the
boats are increasing. Asylum seekers are not going to invest tens
of thousands of $ into a venture that is bound to fail, as was the
case under Howard. Now its worth their while again. A bit of a sob
story and they are in.

*The Indian Ocean will always act as a vast natural barrier to most asylum seekers.*

Bronwyn, quit the melodrama lol. The Indonesians come down and
fish in our waters, every single day.

*Bl..dy hell, Yabby. Where did I say that?*

On the 23rd April, at 11.42, when you posted the following:

*I learnt long ago that Yabby's heart is well and truly ruled by his head. And of course he thinks
the reverse of the likes of you and me.*

*contrary to what you say bribing of officials is rife*

I said nowhere that there was no bribing, I said that many refugees
did not have 2 c to rub together to afford bribes. The point however
is, if there is bribery going on within the Australian public
service, then it should be fixed immediately, so that women and
child refugees are considered too, not just young men with money
behind them.

*you aren't really interested in fairness.*

I certainly am and that is my point. I am simply not a bleeding
heart, who lets emotion distort my ability to think things through
clearly. You dear Bronnie, are not thinking things through clearly,
just following your feelings. You seemingly can't help yourself :)

Bronwyn

Power to you for clearly revealing the weakness of Yabby's argument. There he is along with Ludwig, fear-mongering over a virtual handful of boat refugees. He'd rather insult your intelligence than engage with you or with CJ Morgan's point, which I will repeat here:

"why ...(the) focus on a relative handful of boat people when Australia's population is being increased - legally and illegally - at a much higher rate by so many more immigrants who arrive by more conventional means?"

Yabby, all you have demonstrated to the OLO reader is that the issue of immigrant intake is way "over your head".

As Pelican has already stated we need to stop the baby bonus, establish an immigration policy at replacement level in conjunction with a comprehensive assessment of sustainable population levels both in cities and regional areas.

The big lies of "border protection,"
according to Malcolm Fraser:

"We are told boat people are queue jumpers.
That is not true - there is no queue.
There is no standard refugee process where
people wait in line to have their applications
considered. People fleeing terror have to flee
to other countries to find protection.

We are told "queue jumpers" take places away from
other refugees in other parts of the world. That is
not true. The Australian Government's quota of 12,000
has not always been filled. Even if it were filled,
would it be such a tragedy if the government allowed
some additional refugees into the country?

There are illegal people in Australia. They are not boat
people, they are people who have had a visa and overstay.
Most have come to Australia by air. They include 5000 from
Britain.

We have been told the boat people are not refugees.
That is not true. 97 percent of applicants from Iraq and
93 percent from Afghanistan who sought asylum without
valid visas in Australia were recognised as genuine
refugees. Under Australian law, they were eligible to stay
here.

We are told they are wealthy enough to pay people smugglers
and, therefore, could not be genuine refugees. That is not
true. Payments made to people smugglers range between $4000
and $5000. Many families spend their last cent and communities
pool resources to try to send relatives to safety.
People smuggling is a crime and it needs to be combated -
but it does not negate the legitimacy of asylum seekers'
claims.

We are told refugees should stay in the first country they
get to. That is not correct. There is no international
requirement for refugees to seek asylum in that country."

And finally:

"It is claimed people who destroy their identification can't
be genuine refugees. That is incorrect. Refugees generally
can't travel through conventional channels because they
can't get a passport from the persecuting government."

Bronwyn,
Obviously I think you're correct.
As per my erratum post, Yabby fails to acknowledge the other consequences of the apparent Liberal continuing policy.

As you pointed out it's the push forces more than the pull forces that are the predominant motivation.

His denial of this betrays his Chauvinistic (as in jingoistic) attitudes towards Australia's pull to these people. He totally ignores the reality of their pride/attachment to their own country.
Most are happy with traditional life styles but when the choice is between death/starvation then other places begrudgingly win.
See the fate of many of the Mong in US.

He ignores my point of the failure of deterrents by desperate people.
His preferred Liberal policy is a short term stop gap.With long term consequences.

Reality dictates that if traffickers didn't exist many would undertake/instigate the voyage themselves?
Given the Cubans' exit to Florida, the Africans brave the Mediterranean to Sicily. Then as he says the Indonesian make the journey to Aust waters every day and PNG natives regularly come from Papua it's only a matter of time.

He also ignores the international Covenant signed by Aust. It doesn't differentiate between arrival modes making one illegal and the other not.

Some of the implications mentioned have been used before against recalcitrant nations who don't honour international law. We're not big enough to tough it out internationally.

As previously stated I think he's more about stirring and totally (myopically) self interested rather that rationally unemotional.

If this weren't so one wonders what's the point of his continual put downs ( PD are generally power plays) perhaps “Quiet I know best." or “I want to be the king pin."

Contrary to some opinions I avoid that sort of language for that reason. 'Pontificator' is one such unnecessary power play.

I think we are using the thread to get back into ten thousand boat people.
For me it is about the idea that Julie has any idea about anything.
She has none never will have her party is lost so dreadfully lost I can find only one other team so self destructive.
The NSW ALP.
Those who in my view could best serve the Conservative movement by leaving start with Julie.
Never in the history of federal politics has the word opposition so fully described one side of Parliament.
NSW not a hard task any one who thinks Nathan Rees can read and write is better leaving now.

Govts on both sides of the fence haven’t handled the issue well. They need to dance to the tune of the Australian electorate and not some ditty produced by a moribund “human rights” theocracy.

Bronwyn & Foxy seem to think the “refugee” issue has the qualities of a fashion contest ( & probably give it as much thought!) . We, apparently, should feel inadequate if we have a lesser intake of “refugees” than some other places.

It is important to remember that not all refugee sanctuaries are the same .You need to distinguish between those places which allow, or rather cannot prevent squatters, but offer them little or no support, places which the squatters have no intention of calling home -- as in the case with your typical African/Asian refugee shelter, and OZ where shortly after arriving they will receive full benefits and citizenship –including the right to sponsor more of their kind.

Any current figure of intakes, however “miniscule” , will invariable grow to exponentially as each of the new citizens sponsor a brother, sister ,mother father or wivesssss (plural) .

Bronwyn cites the Sri-Lankan civil war as a push factor.
However, one does wonder why Tamils flee “persecution” in Sri Lanka need to hazard the journey to OZ when just a stones throws across the straits the Tamil ruled states in India (including , “Tamil Nadu “country of the Tamils") –who aided and abetted their cause during the civil war --are warmly and welcomely waiting--strange that?

As for CJ Morgan, (talk about the pot calling the kettle! ) while it is refreshing to hear CJ acknowledge the dodgy education-immigration schemes – I seem to remember the last time he was given a chance to expound on such evils he chose to shoot his wad at OZ racism -- and said nary a word about the rorting side things --strange that!

*Given the above correction perhaps you can show me where in history deterrents against desperate people has worked?*

Examinator, we saw it right here in Australia. When Howard clamped
down and made it highly likely that people were wasting their money,
the boat trade virtually stopped.

* Are you happy about the probable consequences of primary industry trade retaliation and worse?*

Frankly Examinator, you pulled that one straight out of your arse :)
Who has threatened Australia with trade retaliation? China? Japan?
Indonesia, Saudi Arabia perhaps?

Australia could change its policy tomorrow and announce that all
future asylum seekers would come out of camps, it would be accepted,
for Australia is not the only country suffering from a rort of the
1951 convention. Rudd won't do it as he wants to win the next
election and needs the bleeding heart vote, like yours. But it
makes perfect, rational sense.

Fraccy, CJ's point has been addressed long ago. People arriving by
other means, or overstaying visas, are returned to their countries
of origin when caught. Most even have the return ticket in hand,
or they would not have obtained a visitors visa. This discussion
happens to be about boat people.

*Refugees generally
can't travel through conventional channels because they
can't get a passport from the persecuting government.*

In that case Foxy, they could not board a plane and fly to Malaysia

A quick tip for Jayb and others: when you say that refugees should apply to emigrate from their own country, you're confessing to a complete ignorance of how things work in the real world.

Do you think an Afghani Christian convert - or woman of any persuasion - can just rock up to the non-existent immigration office and ask to come to Australia? How about an Iranian democracy activist? Can he apply to leave without getting a visit from the secret police for torture and biscuits? How naive.

Not only is there no queue to jump, but the people who'd most like to join one don't have a chance.

Same old canards, same old haters posting them.

Yabby, I know you're not stupid - so why do you persist in posting material about refugees that you know is untrue? Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, no matter how often you do it.

I'm not going to bother again to painstakingly refute each of the lies and distortions about refugees posted by Yabby and the other refugee-bashers, since I've done so about this topic several times in this forum.

Thanks to Belly for reminding us of the "10,000 boat people" beat-up from a couple of months back. We've seen 1640 in the last year - I wonder what happened to the other 8360?

"Do you really think that a Liberal govt would significantly increase O/S aid to where it's needed? Have a good look at the history. Ms Bishop is playing politics trying to tap into the low level racism in this country."

Examinator, I don't know if Bishop is playing politics or not. It could well be the case. Or it could be both a political move and a sensible logical move that she knows will appeal to the majority of sensible logical Australians. Or it might just be a sensible move regardless of what people might think!

But what was Rudd's weakening of border protection about, if not a political move designed to appeal to bleeding-hearter CJ Morgan types, regardless of common-sense?

Why on earth did he feel the need to tamper with Howard's entrenched and effective policy and risk triggering a whole new onshore asylum-seeking people-smuggling highly emotive and highly expensive saga?

What the hell did he think he was doing??

No commonsense in that move AT ALL. And while it no doubt appealed to a lot of people, it would have pissed a whole bigger portion of populace right off!

Absolutely mindboggling!!

Thanks to all those who have responded here, on both sides of the debate, except for old CJ, who just can't respond without the kindergarten-level crudities.

"refugee-bashing", "trolling", "Same old canards, same old haters posting them."

Dear o dear. What a fruitball!!

.
There is so much to respond to....and so little time when I'm just popping in to various internet portals as I cruise around the far north Queensland coast! [from Palm Cove this morning]

I'm going off to enjoy a run, swim and lie on the beach on this weird dust-shrouded morning. But before that, I note that everyone is discussing onshore asylum seekers and all have missed the vastly more important point that I raised in the opening post; about population and sustainability policy.

<< ...I note that everyone is discussing onshore asylum seekers and all have missed the vastly more important point that I raised in the opening post; about population and sustainability policy. >>

How wrong you are Ludwig. Please refer to previous posts and posters:

Yours truly:

"Of course none of this excuses the equally delusory track the Rudd government appears to be on regarding climate, sustainability, pollution and population.

What we need is a genuine Opposition that is able to ensure that the current federal government does govern for the good of Australia rather than make hollow claims to do so."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3080&page=0#72508

Bronwyn:

<< In conjunction, I dearly hope they also see fit to increase our international aid effort directed at the causes of refugeeism, they increase our refugee intake within a much-reduced total immigration intake and they develop a population and sustainability policy for this country. >>

I'm in total agreeance on all these points, as we've established previously. :)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3080#72437

Pelican:

"Ridiculous when you think of our water situation and the rampant growth of our largest cities and we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the US, Europe and Britain."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3080&page=0#72496

On the subject of insults, you fail to notice Yabby's continual maligning of all he disagrees with, yet focus on CJ who is as fed up to the eye teeth as I am with refuting his and your arguments every time the issue of asylum seekers is raised.

Fact: Rudd has not weakened the Pacific Solution set in place by Howard.

"In fact Rudd’s refugee policy is still underpinned by the same ideology and policies as Howard’s—mandatory detention, offshore processing (Christmas Island has replaced Nauru, but asylum seekers still can’t access Australian law unless they get to the mainland), and border protection. The remoteness of Christmas Island means there is no transparency to its operations.

Rather than challenge the anti-refugee sentiments whipped up throughout the Howard years and still pushed by the present crop of Liberals, Rudd is still concerned to appease any lingering anti-refugee sentiments and outflank the Liberals from the right."

http://www.solidarity.net.au/16/rudd%E2%80%99s-anti-people-smuggling-hysteria-is-risking-asylum-seekers%E2%80%99-lives/

Ludwig
Julie might? be playing politics?
The majority of sensible ? logical?? Australians. Come on mate your not that naive. That's so wrong in so many ways/levels.
If the majority of Aussies or any other country for that matter we wouldn't be in the mess we are.
The Howard LED LIB government were appealing to the low level entrenched prejudiced in this country...tired old politics (up dated version of "yellow hordes" and "reds under the bed" That govt was big on spending around election time ....note Costello's words about tax cuts etc. Anything to maintain power.
BTW YOU raised the topic with "onya Julie" because that was what she was talking about.

Yabby
I concur with CJ in his summation and add that you or have no sense of consequential logic or you're playing your childish games again.

Just for others reading
I did say that these threats had been spoken about and used against other recalcitrant countries (sanctions)
There are other countries that would happily take a large portion of Aus share of primary industry trade including the US.

But that may or not be but the point is that we can't afford to thumb our noses at other countries.

Yabby ignored the obvious regarding desperate people being deterred.
Simply put they weren't desperate enough at the time refugee flows fluctuate depending on the conditions in the home countries. Just for those who aren't paying attention the conditions in those countries have deteriorated some what. Fighting in Afghan alone is the worse for years. Lets not forget the logical time lag between an escalating war(s), famine, deteriorating conditions etc and the time the refugees decide enough is enough and go on the move.

Oh yes human rights are just for white people aren't they? Bugger the
the bleeding heart crap what happened to being simply Humane

Ludwig

<< I'm going off to enjoy a run, swim and lie on the beach ... But before that, I note that everyone is discussing onshore asylum seekers and all have missed the vastly more important point that I raised in the opening post; about population and sustainability policy. >>

As pointed out by Fractelle, most of us here agree with you on the urgent need for rigorous population and sustainability policies and have, as she clearly demonstrated, acknowledged that point.

But, dear Ludwig, your initial post was not primarily about that and you know it. You opened with Julie Bishop's crackpot statement on asylum seekers and continued on in the same vein for well over half your post. You had one sentence about population and sustainability policies.

Besides, why would anyone quote Julie Bishop and appeal to the Coalition for leadership in this area, when they've never given it before and when it directly contradicts their philosophical preference for growth-at-all-costs. No Ludwig, as CJ has already pointed out, you very clearly used Julie Bishops's dog-whistle on asylum seekers to once again do your own whistling here.

I can understand CJ not wanting to go through it all again with you when he's just done it recently in the lengthy ten thousand boat people thread, where he calmly and consistently refuted every point you raised and well and truly had your measure, but I have no such weariness. And there are many others here too who've had a neckful of this irrational paranoia and hatred of asylum seekers and will stay with you on this one. So, dear Ludwig, no more retreating to the beach. Come back and participate in the debate you started. :)

You could begin by explaining how we can stop the boats coming without condemning people to danger and death. You keep lauding Howard's policies. Do you ever consider the deaths and the misery those policies created? Or does your mind conveniently blank out at that point? Or do you consider those deaths as justifiable 'collateral damage' if Australia is to maintain its privileged lifestyle?

Oh Dear;
Sancho; we all know that real refugees cannot apply in their home country.
They could apply in Pakistan, or what ever country they ëscape" to.
They must however have a passport otherwise they could not get on a flight to Malaysia.
They could apply at the Australian Embassy in any of the countries they passed through.
However they do not, they prefer to arrive illegally.
That is the start and finish of it.

Bronwyn;
Dear me, if the boats could get to wherever they are intercepted
they could get back to Indonesia.
Some at least are intercepted in the Indonesian Search & Rescue area.
The Navy, if it was obeying international law, would either refuel the
boat and send it to Indonesia or remove the passengers and crew and
take them to the nearest Indonesian port.
That you might remember was what the Norwegian ship was going to do
until he was threatened by those he rescued.

I find it hard to believe that so many people cannot see that the vast
majority of those picked up are not true refugees, but economic migrants.
True refugees would not get that far.

Ludwig is right, we do not have enough water to have an immigration
policy at all. If all is so ok to let them all come send them to
Melbourne, they have plenty of water.

"How wrong you are Ludwig"

Thanks for bringing that to my attention Fractelle. I admit, I'm rushing - not reading stuff carefully enough and not responding to my normal standard of excellence (:>)

But then, them's the breaks when you is on holidays....and have much more important things to do like running on the beach, swimming, sun-bathing and admiring bikini-clad babes!

"Fact: Rudd has not weakened the Pacific Solution set in place by Howard."

Huh?? Now that's just plain false.

Fractelle, I've asked this of CJ and Bronwyn previously and they've come up way short of a good overall answer: What do you want to see happen in regards to onshore asylum seekers? Do you want an open-door policy? Do you want them to be able to move freely in society before they found to be refugees or otherwise? Do you not think that the number of arrivals could escalate greatly if border protection policy is diluted any further, and perhaps could escalate greatly with the current policy as the word spreads around the world?

The small number of arrivals now is incosequential in terms of population growth and sustainability, but it could just so easily escalate and become a significant factor in this regard.

"No Ludwig, as CJ has already pointed out, you very clearly used Julie Bishops's dog-whistle on asylum seekers to once again do your own whistling here."

'Dog-whistling. Please Bronwyn, leave the pre-school vocabulary to Ceej. It doesn't become you. As I explained in the first post, things that are rotten and remain unresolved SHOULD be revisited, and certainly not just let lie. Now wouldn't you do the same thing with subjects that you feel passionate about?

"So, dear Ludwig, no more retreating to the beach. Come back and participate in the debate you started. :)"

Hey Madame Bullybum, my first priority is da BEACH!! But I'll keep participating in the debate as well. In fact I can guarantee that I'll still be here on this thread after everyone else has whittled away! And I can also virtually guarantee, as is evident from multiple past experiences, that the hard questions won't get answered and that this discussion will stop midstream as a result, as unresolved as ever.

But we'll give it a go regardless.

Just be a bit patient with mwe pwease. I'm on long-service leave. So OLO is not my first priority... compared to being at home...where it reigns supreme over work, home life, health, and everything else!! ( :>/

Now what's that you asked - "Do you ever consider the deaths and the misery those policies created?" etc, etc.

Ooow, look at that beautiful day out there [gazing out the window of the Trinity Beach post office]. Nope, I'm off. Da beach beckons. I'll address your questions tomorrow. Chowsers ( :>)

*There are other countries that would happily take a large portion of Aus share of primary industry trade including the US.*

The US already steal our markets, using Govt subsidies. Now Examinator, stop the verbal masturbation and name me which country
has threatened trade sanctions, due to our asylum seeker policy.
You can't, its all hotair, straight our your bum :) As it happens,
I know a great deal about our agricultural markets, so you can't
feed me the crapola that others might gullibly believe.

*Simply put they weren't desperate enough at the time*

Ho ho ho Examinator, you have got to be kidding. Something like
20 million refugees in refugee camps and they are not desperate?

Humane starts with being fair, not with being a sucker for
people who seek a cushy lifestyle and are good at telling a story.

The first boat past the line is neither fair nor humane, nor safe,
its just appealing to the bleeding heart who can't think too well.

*The remoteness of Christmas Island means there is no transparency to its operations.*

Remote? Christmas Island is just off our coast, you can fly there
anytime you like, Aussies live there. Sheesh, if things are not
in downtown Melbourne, they must be remote. If Western Australia
would only secede from you lot, we'd be much better off, we really
would.

Great job Ludwig, Yabby , Jayd, Bazz & Austin--well argued ,well presented, & well won --high-five’s all around!

Two of the key features of team-Bronwyn seem to be a limited knowledge of history, geography , human nature ...practically everything!
And, an unlimited grab bag of prefab pleadings.

LOL

Cheers all

Fascinating. In the last week the media's been full of reports about Australia's burgeoning population and the exponential rate at which it's increasing. The Rudd government has outlined its plans to encourage this trend, which will result in an Australian population of 35M by 2050. Australia's population has increased by 439,000 in the year to March, of which 300,000 were due to immigration.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26110375-421,00.html

Various conservation groups and the Greens have expressed dismay at this trend, and have called upon the government to reduce immigration and to promote population sustainability.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,26092455-1702,00.html

If one was "passionate" about promoting debate about a sustainable population at OLO, there is plenty of fodder in these reports to stimulate an intelligent discussion about the pros and cons of increasing Australia's population. However, what does Ludwig do when presented with a prime opportunity to reinvigorate his favourite topic on these pages?

He posts a scurrilous 'dog-whistle' comment lauding the attempt by the odious Liberal MP Julie Bishop to exploit the misery of 'boat people' yet again. Sure enough, a few of our usual mutts have responded predictably, spewing out a litany of lies and distortions that serve to divert attention completely away from the real issues associated with record immigration levels, on to a relative handful of desperate refugees wo arrive by boat.

I haven't read a single factual comment from the haters and refugee-bashers who responded so readily to Ludwig's dog-whistle - rather, they just regurgitate the kind of factoids that are given credence by wingnut radio shock jocks and their internet equivalents.

Ludwig should be thoroughly ashamed of himself - as should Horus's haters, who are certainly way in front when it comes to inhumanity and mendacity.

CJ Morgan

I too have been struck by the fixation upon the smallest segment of Australia's immigration - boat people. If Australia was to adopt a policy of returning every single boat arrival from now on, there would not be a measurable difference in Australia's population now or in the future, which as you have pointed is projected to be 35 Million by 2050.

The question we need to ask is can Australia sustain 35 million people? I don't think we can. A limit must be set and both population policies and sustainable infra-structure set in place. Not in some nebulous future date - but NOW.

The best thing we can do for developing countries, is to ensure the availability and knowledge of contraception to the women of these countries.

This obsession with a handful of people arriving destitute on our shores, the majority of whom turn out to be genuine asylum seekers, is nothing more than a red herring designed to prevent us from establishing limits and goals which we as a country can work towards.

This entire thread is a furphy. It is not about sustainability, nor is it about keeping terrorists from our shores (who arrive by plane rather than risk the leaky boat) it is just a sick, sad opportunity for a few who have more time than intelligence to continually denigrate a few miserable people, while ignoring the very real challenges that face us as we head into a future where resources are finite.

Ludwig for the benefit of us all, and to claw back some credibility, please explain your obsession with boat people over the very real problem of over-population.

Fraccy, you still don't get it and you never will. The debate about
boat people is not about hatred or anything else, its about principle.

Fact is that the whole thing costs an absolute fortune, is not fair,
nor safe, nor just, nor anything else. It just keeps dragging on,
year after year. Those resources could help one hell of a lot more
people, if spent wisely, which is not the case here.

So the way to fix it, is to shut it down, once and for all, for
good.

If you then want to have another debate about Australia's population,
that is a separate issue, go right ahead.

"You could begin by explaining how we can stop the boats coming without condemning people to danger and death. You keep lauding Howard's policies. Do you ever consider the deaths and the misery those policies created? Or does your mind conveniently blank out at that point? Or do you consider those deaths as justifiable 'collateral damage' if Australia is to maintain its privileged lifestyle?"

Bronny, I'll have to seek clarification.

What deaths are you talking about? The deaths of people that would occur in the countries that onshore asylum seekers are coming from if they didn't have any option of heading across the world to Australia, via the very expensive and dangerous people-smuggling route? Or the deaths that might happen to those that have undertaken the trip, only to find a entry much harder when they get here than existed when they left?

What deaths and misery was created by Howard's policies? Oh, the misery of people being detained until their claims were sorted out. Is that what you mean? Yes there was misery there, compared to a situation of allowing all asylum seekers to move freely in our society until their claims were processed or just accepting them as permanent residents straight up....which of course would have been totally untenable because it would have led directly to a massively increased influx, which would have led to a massive public and political backlash and a very hard line being taken with all asylum seekers.

This is the point at which our discussions have stopped at least three times over the last four years on this forum - the point at which I ask: how could we possibly have treated onshore asylum seekers in the way that you wish without spurring an enormous increase in the number of arrivals?

Howard's policy was right. He strove to close our borders to this sort of movement, while dealing with those caught in the middle in a humane way while upholding a strong deterrence factor. The great majority of asylum seekers were accepted and onshore asylum seeking virtually ended.....until Rudd came along.

"Ludwig for the benefit of us all, and to claw back some credibility, please explain your obsession with boat people over the very real problem of over-population."

Fractelle, if you address the questions I asked you yesterday, I'll address your request.

.

"Fact is that the whole thing costs an absolute fortune, is not fair, nor safe, nor just, nor anything else. It just keeps dragging on, year after year. Those resources could help one hell of a lot more people, if spent wisely, which is not the case here. So the way to fix it, is to shut it down, once and for all, for good."

Well put Yabby.

According to todays Tele, plans are being drawn up to house many additional illegals in former defence establishments. See article

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/defence-bases-to-house-illegal-immigrants/story-e6freuy9-1225779282062

Now I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this article, but it would not surprise me.

The lure of permanent residency, and all that it entails, is the big drawcard for those with the funds and willing to take the risk of sailing the open ocean. The present government has enticed the illegals to take that risk. In the last year it has directly led to the deaths of 5 illegals and the chance of another Siev X is high.

The way to stop the boats coming is to make it not worth the effort, cost and risk, as did the previous government.

Fractelle,
I can easily tell you why I do not want the illegals comong here.

It is simply because they are opportunists, selfish and deceitfull. They fly to Malaysia or Indonesia on either valid or false documents then once enroute to Aus they destroy the docs so as to deceive our authorities. They impose themselves on us by gate crashing and taking advantage of our weak standards for terming them refugees. Some even stay at good hotels while waiting for the boat to be organised. Former detention staff have attested that some have many thousands of dollars on their person. A few have even engaged light aircraft to fly from Indonesia to remote airstrips in Aus. They have even scuttlrd their craft to force our personel to take them on board. They even hyjacked the Tampa after they were rescued. Not nice people at all.

I do not believe the those that can bribe their way and lie and cheat should be rewarded with our sanctuary. There are many thousands of far more deserving people we could welcome.

I do not like to be conned or taken for a ride or have the wool pulled over my eyes.

Like Yabby said , it is a matter of fairness and principle.

What Yabby and ilk fail to grasp is that most of these people don't come from camps or places where there is a line or camp that they can go and wait for your orderly principal. Either way it is an on going and escalating problem.

People can't live by principal alone they need food, safety etc.
By their standards i wonder what makes them think that any other option, other than "I'm all right jack and stuff you", is cheaper.The long term consequences of that will be ...um....interesting, I hope I'm long gone by then but, I do fear for our children.

I argued that in the long term it would come back and bite future Aussies. Clearly they don't care about them either.
Consequential logic and cause and effect don't happen in their world.
BTW Ludwig's solution will cost heaps too and will go on for years mind you it is over there. With AGW we can reasonably expect the situation to worsen what then? Bigger war ships to sink the increasingly desperate?

I see that Ludwig and Yabby are still telling lies about Howard's inhumane approach to asylum seekers who arrive by boat. As I've pointed out every time you guys bring up this furphy, the numbers of such refugees attempting to seek asylum in Australia declined for the same reasons that the numbers of asylum seekers declined worldwide - i.e. the 'push' factors receded temporarily. In any event, they didn't stop coming - rather, their numbers declined temporarily.

I note that nobody's cared to answer my question about what happened to the other 8360 of the 10,000 boat people that Ludwig et al were certain would be coming here because Rudd acted to make his government's approach to onshore asylum seekers somewhat more humane than Howard's callous policy. If Rudd's more ethical approach was going to be seen as some kind of invitation, where are they?

Banjo's hateful drivel is classic - the only thing of interest about it is that he took so long to come out of his kennel in response to Ludwig's scurrilous dog whistle. Speaking of whom - I don't think I'll be engaging with the old misanthrope much any more after these latest antics.

There's little point in trying to communicate with people who are bigoted, dishonest and discourteous. Little wonder he spends most of his time in the company of plants, or ogling women at the beach.

CJ Morgan,

1. Re: “I note that nobody's cared to answer my question about what happened to the other 8360 of the 10,000 boat people that Ludwig et al were certain would be coming here”

Well let me try to enlighten you.Your other 8360 are likely to be either already here or on their way.
For every one that comes by boat there will be many more who follow through one or other shonky immigration schemes.
Actually the figure is more likely to be a lot, lot higher than 8360. I recall that one of the most oft raised complaints by internees about Howard system was it denied them the right to sponsor others.

And as the USA is finding out, many of these others -- re-badged family-- have absolutely no connection at all with the sponsor
.http://www.t-g.com/story/print/1478471.html

2. Re: “As I've pointed out every time you guys bring up this furphy, the numbers of such refugees attempting to seek asylum in Australia declined for the same reasons that the numbers of asylum seekers declined worldwide - i.e. the 'push' factors”

Yeh, you point it out every time, and it is pointed out to you, every time, that you are wrong --but apparently you are a little slow on the uptake.

You might recall a post by Franklin about a month back .In his post he revealed “that there are
45 African countries are UN member states and are signatories to the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9334#149206

Now if the intent of such “refugees” was to seek shelter from the storm i.e. push factors , they have a good selection of local countries to choose from.

But what do we see --we see a growing flood of such persons to Europe or the Americas.
So it would seem it has more to do with pull factors.
And those who can’t -- see--that, probably can attribute that to their own, pull factors .

*What Yabby and ilk fail to grasp is that most of these people don't come from camps or places where there is a line or camp that they can go and wait for your orderly principal. Either way it is an on going and escalating problem.*

Examinator, if there is no line, then the Govt is free to make one
and to inform us how it evaluates who gets to the front of the queue
and why. Fact is, we'll never ever be able to satisfy eveyone who
might want to join the line, reality prevails.

Yes, it is an on going and escalating problem, so it needs a solution.

You have not offered one, just a bit more bleating. There is
a solution. Shut the whole trade down and take people from a line,
developed by the Govt.

*I see that Ludwig and Yabby are still telling lies about Howard's inhumane approach to asylum seekers who arrive by boat.*

Hang on CJ, back in your box you go. Fact is that the refugee camps
have had millions and millions in them, every day of every year.
They simply have no money to bribe anyone, so you conveniently
ignore them.

You keep raising this furphy of hate. Sorry CJ, but a bit of common
sense to see a situation as it is, suggests to me that these posters
simply have more common sense then you, and don't wear their hearts
on their sleeves as you do. If a woman can drive you to drink,
then clearly you are following your feelings and still have to
learn to think about them a bit more. They call it emotional
intelligence, perhaps you lack it. Don't blame us for your
problems

Ah but Yabby, it's clearly not me who has a problem with a few refugees getting here by boat, among hundreds of thousands of other immigrants and who knows how many visa overstayers.

However, in your case (and probably Ludwig's) 'hate' is probably overstating it a bit - callous indifference is probably closer to the mark. Mind you, when the pack comes baying to the dog-whistle, it's a little hard to tell.

Here's a song for Ludwig:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPI1nAqkpLQ

<< Fractelle, I've asked this of CJ and Bronwyn previously and they've come up way short of a good overall answer: What do you want to see happen in regards to onshore asylum seekers? >>

Ludwig wants me to reinvent the wheel for his biased and subjective judgement.

Hmmmm. Do I have a life?

Yes I do.

Better posters than I have set out practical and humane processes for people arriving on Australia's shores by boat.

He knows that the total of boat people is so small as to be negligible, that over 80% turn out to be genuine refugees and not a single one is a terrorist.

He never addresses the issue that detaining children indefinitely is nothing short of child abuse. Australia's entry into the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child precluded the Federal Government from indefinitely detaining children under the Migration Act.

Nor does he appear concerned that the majority of refugees arrive by plane.

As Yabby so simplistically dismissed,

<< People arriving by other means, or overstaying visas, are returned to their countries of origin when caught. >>

" In the 2007-08 financial year, it was estimated that around 14,000 people overstayed their visa. "

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/86overstayers-and-other-unlawful-non-citizens.htm

Yabby and his ilk continue to sweat bricks over boat people - how many was it since Rudd took office?

1845 people during 2008.

Compared ... to ... 14,000

I can see why you people are so concerned.... not.

In addition, of these 14,000...

"The Australian migration program ensures that prospective permanent migrants meet criteria generally based on skills and/or family relationships. These criteria include stringent checks of health and character reflecting the long term nature of their stay in the Australian community....

An estimate of the number of overstayers in the Australian community is calculated every six months. Since June 2004, this estimate has remained below 50 000 against a total Australian population of around 21 million."

Put simply, Ludwig, you are not credible.

CJ you are supporting either directly or indirectly an open door policy.
That would be total madness as surely you could see.
As we can only take a small percentage of the total then there just has
to be an organised system. Thats what the UN Refugee organisation is
about. They make the selection and we accept what we can of that selection.

Those not accepting a UN allocation just have to accept it and find
another solution.
We have no obligation outside that.

Those, call them queue jumpers if you like, but never the less we have
absolutely no obligation to them. They have broken both international
and Australian law, especially if they have thrown away their
passports, which they must have had to get as far as Indonesia.

I would send them straight back to Indonesia, but originally
Indonesia refused them re-entry because they had no documentation
or proof that they left Indonesia.

I presume you know why they throw away their passports.
In case you don't know, it is so we cannot send them back to their
country as they mostly refuse to admit where they come from.
Not sure they still do that now as interpreters can usually work out
where they come from, but without passports they can be refused by
their home country.

There must be too much leniency in jailing the crew.
If the penalties were much harder then there would be no Indonesian
fisherman willing to undertake the voyage.
As most of the illegals are not from maritime countries they would
not have ocean going skills to take the vessel themselves.
The death rate would escalate if they did.

Fractelle,

Re: "The Australian migration program ensures that prospective permanent migrants meet criteria generally based on skills and/or family relationships. These criteria include stringent checks of health and character reflecting the long term nature of their stay in the Australian community....”

If you believe that, you probably also believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden!

Having met numerous “skilled migrants” , who have soon after landing, chosen to work in fruit shops or other occupations total unrelated to the --special skill --that gained them residency.

Having dealt with numerous “refugees”, who have soon after gaining their permanency , returned to work or live in their country of “persecution” .

I must confess I have a lot less faith in our programs & processes. I sometimes think that if you were to push a gaggle of mannequins’ through immigration they’d rubber stamp them --genuine-- just so long as the appropriate “made in Afghanistan /Iraq” label was showing.

And, here’s another’s testimony:
“For ten years I was head of the UK immigration services. I have long known that the Home Office statistics bear no relation at all to the true facts on immigration…The actual rate was more than twice the official one.”
Peter Tompkins –[ Overloading Australia –Mark O’Connor & William J Lines]

Bazz

<< Bronwyn; Dear me, if the boats could get to wherever they are intercepted they could get back to Indonesia. >>

Most of the boats are barely seaworthy enough to make it here in the first place, let alone survive a retun trip. And even if the boats did make it back, the people aboard arguably wouldn't, as they rarely have adequate food and water for a single trip, let alone a return one.

Yabby

<< Remote? Christmas Island is just off our coast, you can fly there anytime you like, Aussies live there. >>

At 2600 kms north west of Perth and 500 kms south of Jakarta, Christmas Island is indeed remote from Australia. It's a four-hour plane trip and, until it switched to using commercial flights, it was costing the Immigration Department seventy thousand dollars a week to get supplies and staff out there. It's still ridiculously expensive and inefficient. Its remoteness is very deliberate and means that refugee advocates can't give asylum seekers the ongoing support they need, which of course, Yabby, wouldn't trouble you in the least, but does add enormously to the mental pressure on detainees.

Banjo

<< They have even scuttlrd their craft to force our personel to take them on board. >>

The reason this desperate measure has been resorted to on rare occasions is as a last ditch attempt to prevent the Australian Navy from turning the boats around and sending them back to Indonesia.

<< They even hyjacked the Tampa after they were rescued. Not nice people at all. >>

Any 'highjacking' of the Tampa was done by the Howard Government, not by the rescued asylum seekers on board. The captain tried to take them to the nearest port, as prescribed by international maritime law, but Howard wouldn't allow him to and instead ordered him to return to Indonesia. Some aboard understandably remonstrated, not that it got them anywhere. They were bundled onto an Australian naval vessel and dumped at the remote island hellhole of Nauru and left there indefinitely. You're right Banjo, WE were not 'nice people' at all.

My god Fractelle, you've turned out to be an absolute shocker of a poster! I am flabbergasted. For so long I have thought of you as a voice of reason, but it seems as though it was totally illusory!

So you've posted again, addressing me, but as I predicted you haven't addressed the straightforward, pertinent and all-important questions that I put to you and then reminded you about in a follow-up post.

You obviously can't answer these keys points. If you could, you would. There goes your credibity, dead and buried!

"According to todays Tele, plans are being drawn up to house many additional illegals in former defence establishments"

Yes Banjo. Our illustrious government is predicting a considerable increase in the rate of arrivals and is trying to prepare for it. It is pretty obvious that they want it to happen. In fact I fear that they want the arrival rate to be MUCH higher.

**So can anyone suggest what is really going on here?**

What is Rudd doing??

He's facilitating onshore asylum-seeking. Is this part of his plan to boost Australia's population growth considerably above the current record-high level? Is he a misguided humanitarian who just wants to help as many desperate people as he can? Is he a political opportunist who sees the expression of outrage about Howard's border-protection policy as being more significant than the expression of support for it across the Australian voting public?

It's got me stumped I must say.

I'm hangin out to hear peoples' thoughts.

Fractelle;
>He never addresses the issue that detaining children indefinitely is
>nothing short of child abuse.

Surely taking the children from their parents would be the worse option ?
Do I hear complaints about stolen children ? Hmmm.

Bronwyn;
The crew would not bring the boat if they thought it could not get back.
In any case the Navy could take them off and return them to Indonesia.
I cannot understand your reasoning. The Law of the Sea required the
Tampa to take the passengers and crew to Indonesia because they were
in the Indonesian search and rescue area.
It is also allowable for a ship to not go out of its way if there is
a port on their route. The Tampa was on its way to Singapore.
Indonesian ports were still the closest and correct port enroute.
The Howard government only relented when the Tampa crew were threatened.
Really Bronwyn you and some others here, you need to get off your
cloud nine and join the real world.

The visa over stayers are as said on here a bigger problem, but just
because embezzlement is a less frequenct crime than burglary it does
not mean you ignore embezzlement.

*Yabby and his ilk continue to sweat bricks over boat people*

No Fraccy dear, we don't sweat bricks, we just point out the
ridiculous state of your argument, when your little heart hijacks
any kind of rational thought.

Fact is if the Federal Govt offered first prize to anyone who
got to Canberra in a clapped out, dangerous, unregistered car,
which could well kill them, there would be an outrage.

They are offering much the same thing in the leaky boat first
prize. Indonesians only send boats which are buggered by
their standards and have no further use, as they know it will
be a one way trip. Present Fed Govt policy is encouraging more
and more of them to have a go and win first prize. So they
are putting people in danger, by their Govt policy. If there
was no prize, there would be no leaky boats, simple.

*At 2600 kms north west of Perth*

Sheesh, that is closer then Kununnurra, which is 3000 kms by
road and is still in this State! Bronwyn dear, this is all
still Australia, its not just downtown Melbourne you know.

Four hours travel is hardly far, I spend that much time to
get to the city and back and used to do it 3 times a week.

*and means that refugee advocates can't give asylum seekers the ongoing support they need,*

which translated means alot of overemotional busybodies would like
to interfere with the due process of the law, to establish how
genuine these people really are. Hey they are free to fly to
Xmas Island, its still part of Austalia and they even
speak Australian and have Australian money there :)

You city slickers, sheesh, like rats in a cage, when we take
you out of your ratrace, you are frigging hopeless.

*at the remote island hellhole of Nauru*

Hellhole? ROFL Bronnie, you make my point for me, you need
to get out of Melbourne and see the real world out there.

Ludwig: << I'm hangin out to hear peoples' thoughts >>

Yeah right - so long as they share your misanthropic (or worse) obsession with boat people.

Horus - I don't believe that you've known and dealt with the people you claim you have. You heard those hateful fairytales on talkback radio, didn't you?

Bazz - it's not any sort of crime to enter Australia by whatever means in order to seek asylum. Your comparison is typically odious.

Same old bulldust, same old hate, same old selfishness, same old haters.

Nothing more to see here, I think.

Ludwig

<< 'Dog-whistling. Please Bronwyn, leave the pre-school vocabulary to Ceej. It doesn't become you. >>

I've used that term many times before. It's the perfect description for what you've done on this thread and whether it becomes me or not I will stick with it. :)

<< Bronny, I'll have to seek clarification. What deaths are you talking about? >>

At the risk of once more being labelled 'Madame Bullybum', I have already spelled this out very clearly http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3080#72514 and should not have to go over it again!

The deaths I'm talking about in the implementation of any 'Stop-the-boats' policy are threefold:

1) Asylum-seekers can and do drown when their boats are turned back to Indonesia by the ADF.

2) If they do make it back, they won't be given asylum there. They'll be warehoused indefinitely until another country can be found to take them in. Some have waited eight years already. No wonder they try their luck in a leaky boat.

3)The third alternative is that they're returned to their homeland, which again is happening aided and abetted by the Australian Government. They're thrown back to the same old dangers and many of them are actually in even greater danger through having tried to leave. It's against international law to 'refoule' refugees in this way and we already have many proven deaths on our conscience through doing this, and who knows how many others that remain undocumented. The Australian Government makes no attempt to monitor their progress once they've been sent back.

This is how we create death and misery when we 'stop-the-boats' as you simplistically claim we should do. I hope this is clear enough for you and if this doesn't prick your conscience, then you're a lesser person than I've judged you so far.

<< ... What deaths and misery was created by Howard's policies? >>

All of the above, plus the numerous wrecked lives of those asylum-seekers locked up for years in harsh and punitive detention centres. A vast mjority of them to this day suffer some level of mental illness as a result.

TBC

Ludwig (cont.)

<< What do you want to see happen in regards to onshore asylum seekers? >>

All asylum-seekers who end up in Australian waters should be brought to the mainland where they can be processed much more efficiently and cheaply than they are on Christmas Island. There are many government buildings available that could easily be adapted to fulfil this role. Initial health and security checks should take no longer than three months, or maybe six in busier periods such as the one we're currently experiencing.

After that initial period, they should be released into the community to await the decision on their application for asylum. They would live in low cost community housing and be given government assistance to learn English and become job ready. There are refugee advocacy groups, churches, other community groups and regional towns all over the country who would happily undertake to provide the support needed - to ease initial language and cultural difficulties and to help them transition smoothly into life in Australia.

Experience elsewhere indicates little or no risk of absconding. If treated fairly and decently and provided with support, why would they abscond and have to fend completely for themselves? And as pointed out over and over on these threads, the overwhelming majority of asylum-seekers are genuine. They are ordinary decent people who just want the same chance to live peacefully that you and I were privileged enough to be born into.

Many of them are highly skilled. The majority have skills and a working willingness that enables them to take on jobs many Australians won't. They want nothing more than to pay their way and contribute to the country that gives them a second chance at life. I know. I've met many asylum-seekers and I've yet to meet any that fit the deceitful and dangerous stereotype that Banjo, Bazz, Horus and co would have us believe.

This alternative model would employ many Australians and would cost the taxpayer far less than our current inefficient and inhumane offshore system.

"Dog-whistling" "I've used that term many times before. It's the perfect description for what you've done on this thread and whether it becomes me or not I will stick with it. :)"

Well I am disappointed indeed Bronwyn. In our discussions on this subject and others in which we have disagreed, we've always managed to uphold a good respectable dialogue. But that sort of silly labelling drags you down to a considerably lower standard of correspondence. I implore not to use rubbish terms like that, that are specifically designed to be blunt, rude or outrightly offensive.

Mind you, you are still about eight levels better on a ten point scale than CJ or Fracco! /:>)

But why on earth you have any problem at all with me raising this subject again, especially as it is in the news.... again...is just beyond me! I find it quite absurd that you are criticising me for simply raising the subject. Hey, if you dislike it so much, then why are you participating in this thread??

OK. Thanks for the double post addressing my questions. Again, eight points more than CJ or Frac for doing that, instead of just being puerile, hateful, slanderous and entirely negative like them.

I'll address them in the morning. All this lying around on da beach is really tiring. I'm off for an early night, camping out with the bush stone-curlews and squabbling flying foxes (;>)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bronwyn’s fantasy :

“All asylum-seekers who end up in Australian waters should be brought to the mainland …After that initial period, they should be released into the community to await the decision on their application for asylum…Experience elsewhere indicates little or no risk of absconding”

The reality :

The department says in the five years to June this year there were 13,739 people liable for detention and expulsion hiding in the community…Most of them are people who have been out in the community on various substantive or bridging visas and have gone into hiding when their protection visa claims failed," she said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200212/s747159.htm

“In Britain, France and the United States, 90 per cent of those who are rejected for asylum status go underground. Britain alone has "lost" more than 200,000 people who were rejected for asylum status.”
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538845706.html

Recently, my oldest daughter had a party with friends and co workers (she works part time as a checkout chick, while she studies). I was confronted with the almost unanimous opinion that we needed stronger laws to protect us from the thousands of boat people invading our shores, and threatening the fabric of our society.
When I asked how many knew the number of legal immigrants to our country every year, no one knew; and all were amazed to learn we expected (at that time) around 300, 000. They were also surprised to find out in comparison, we took in about 13,000 refugees.
When I suggested that “as a nation we apparently quite liked immigrants, provided they were rich or had skills; it was only the poor or needy ones we didn't like”, they were strangely silent.
In a world where the greatest threat to Humanity is quite clearly Humanity itself, paying people to have babies is fatally absurd. We could -and should- triple our refugee intake and halve our immigrant intake, and then have some right to claim we are the 'land of the fair go'.
In a community, country or world with strictly finite resources, suggesting the road to wealth is encouraging more people to share the one pie is manifestly stupid.

"The deaths I'm talking about in the implementation of any 'Stop-the-boats' policy are threefold:"

So Bronwyn, the number of deaths would be greater if there was a tight border-protection policy in place, compared to the loose policy we now have, would it?

Obviously if it was known around the world that this sort of entry strategy into Australia was just not on, to the point that neither potential asylum seekers nor people-smugglers would see any point in trying to come, then the number of arrivals and people running into difficulty along the way would be tiny, compared to the much greater number of people and boats that are now on their way thanks to Krudd.

The scale of ongoing onshore asylum seeking movement has a whole lot more to do with the scale of mishap and tragedy than any action taken to close it down would have.

Now I don't for one moment condone the turning around of any boats or the refoulement of asylum seekers before they have had their claims assessed. So all those people who have now mobilised beyond a point where they cannot stop their trip or turn around without great hardship should be accommodated and assessed.

But.... a very strong deterrence factor MUST be implemented as well. I suggest that this vitally important deterrence has to, through necessity, include considerable inconvenience for those caught up in this Krudd-induced dilemma. So this means offshore detention for long periods, with the reasoning being clearly explained to those involved.

That presents us with a very difficult balancing act; to make the lives of those who are caught up in the middle of the malaise bearable while upholding strong deterrence to further arrivals.

"This is how we create death and misery when we 'stop-the-boats' as you simplistically claim we should do."

You're inventing things Bronwyn. I have never 'simplistically' claimed that we should just stop the boats, without a thought for those stuck in the middle.

more later

"<< ... What deaths and misery was created by Howard's policies? >> All of the above..."

It would have been very interesting to have observed the whole deal if Beazley had been in power in 2001 and the about-to-greatly-escalate asylum seeker movement had been allowed to proceed to its full extent. How much death and misery, and civil and political unrest, do you think there would have been then?

August 2001, the time of the Tampa incident, was a watershed moment. If hard action hadn't been taken at that point, we would have really been in the poo...along with many thousands more asylum seekers.

I put it to you that Howard's policy PREVENTED death and misery that would would have occurred on a much greater scale if a weak-kneed Beazley had ruled the roost at the time. (I don't know what big Kimbo might have done. I'm just presenting the very real possibility that things could very easily have got MUCH worse if he'd been in power, or if Howard hadn't acted at the time of the Tampa)

Howard did the right thing. The only criticism I have of him is that he didn't take action a lot earlier, before the word had spread around the world that Australia was a soft target destination.

Some quotes from your earlier posts:

"The problem is, Ludwig, that 'stopping' this movement of people in effect means either turning back unsafe boats and risking drownings, warehousing asylum seekers in appalling limbo conditions in Indonesia or Malaysia, or returning them back home to danger and likely death in Sri Lanka or Afghanistan." Wednesday, 23 September 2009

"You could begin by explaining how we can stop the boats coming without condemning people to danger and death." Thursday, 24 September 2009

I hope this major concern of yours has now been adequately addressed.

continued

So then, no we don't turn boats around. We fairly and reasonably deal with those caught en route by any policy changes, as those caught en route by policy changes were dealt with under Howard's offshore detention 'Pacific Solution', or in a similar manner that upholds the strong deterrence imperative.

So how do we best deal with asylum seekers caught in the middle while deterring others from making the same journey? How do we treat them in the best manner possible while enforcing the deterrence factor?

How do we do this so that we can close down this path of access to Australia.....or at least so that the numbers don't escalate to the extent of the whole deal becoming a major ugly scene for many thousands of people....with the inevitable consequence of a much harder line being taken with all involved?

With respect Bronwyn, your desire to bring them all to the mainland and allow them to move freely in society after a short period is a recipe for spurring an enormous increase in the number of arrivals, which as I keep saying would be a recipe for the development of a much harder line being demanded by the Australian citizenry and acceded to by the decision-makers, on fear of being kicked out of office at the subsequent election.

Spurring a much larger arrival rate would be a sure-fire way of engendering a brickwall 'fortress Australia' turn-the-boats-around-regardless-of-the-risk-to-their-lives type of policy.

Bazz

<< The Law of the Sea required the Tampa to take the passengers and crew to Indonesia because they were in the Indonesian search and rescue area. >>

As I stated before, maritime law dictated that the Tampa go to the nearest port to where the rescue occurred which was Christmas Island a few hours away. Indonesia was over twelve hours away. Your comments indicate a complete misunderstanding of the Tampa incident and suggest to me your grasp of asylum seeker issues more widely is similarly limited.

Yabby

<< Hellhole? ROFL Bronnie, you make my point for me, you need to get out of Melbourne and see the real world out there. >>

I can't see why the 'hellhole' description would have any sane person rolling on the floor laughing. That's exactly what it was. The conditions were appalling. The isolation, the unbearable heat and the interminable waiting with little or nothing to do for months and years on end resulted in many detainees becoming pyhsically and mentally ill. What exactly would you know about Nauru, Yabby, or any other detention centre for that matter? Very little, I'd suggest.

BTW, I don't live in Melbourne or any other city, and I have no more need than you do, dear Yabby, to get out there and see the real world.

Ludwig

<< I implore not to use rubbish terms like that, that are specifically designed to be blunt, rude or outrightly offensive. >>

I repeat, dear Ludwig, the term was applicable. Maybe if you'd been more circumspect in your initial choice of language << But I believe that if something's rotten, then you've got to keep at it and not just let stinking dogs lie! >>, I might have been too. :)

Horus

<< The department says in the five years to June this year there were 13,739 people liable for detention and expulsion hiding in the community… >>

This discussion is about asylum seekers who've arrived by boat. The majority of the people you've referred to here would be visa oversteers who've arrived by plane. Nearly all asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees, and their claims for asylum as such are not as likely to be rejected and to result in abscondment.

<< “In Britain, France and the United States, 90 per cent of those who are rejected for asylum status go underground. Britain alone has "lost" more than 200,000 people who were rejected for asylum status.” >>

Our numbers are a miniscule fraction of those being dealt with in the UK, France and the US. We have a few hundred or at most a few thousand asylum seekers arriving by boat each year, whereas the countries mentioned here have at least ten times our numbers.

Last year 4,750 applications for asylum were made in Australia (of which 179 were boat arrivals), 49,000 were made in the United States, 36,900 in Canada, 35,200 in France, 31,200 in Italy, and 30,500 in the United Kingdom.

Besides, this article you’ve quoted is seven years old so not necessarily relevant to anything happening today.

*I can't see why the 'hellhole' description would have any sane person rolling on the floor laughing. That's exactly what it was. The conditions were appalling. The isolation, the unbearable heat*

Hang on whoah, unbearable for a spoiled rotten Aussie female such as yourself perhaps!

Life is relative. If I had been persecuted, in fear of my life,
no food, in a refugee camp in Pakistan maybe, life in Nauru
would have been a breeze! You'll see plenty of outback Aussies
in mining camps live in very similar conditions.

Yes its hot on a tropical island, its hot in Singapore, Darwin,
Kununnurra, tens of millions live in the tropics, even voluntarily
on Nauru there are 9000 people. When the place was first discovered
by a Westerner, it was in fact called Pleasant Island. Bananas,
pineapples, coconuts, all grow well there.

The camp had sporting facilities, phone, email. Food and medical
services. Given my background of fearing for my life, I would
think this was wonderful!

The only people really pissed off being on Nauru, would have been
those people who thought they had bought a boat ticket to a cushy
Western lifestyle and now found that things did not go their way.

People genuinely in fear of their lives, no longer had to fear,
they would have been relieved.

"Experience elsewhere indicates little or no risk of absconding."

No it doesn't Bronwyn! Not at all.

"If treated fairly and decently and provided with support, why would they abscond and have to fend completely for themselves?"

Um, because they know or very strongly suspect that their claims won't be approved. Or they've had their claims rejected. They wouldn't have to fend completely for themselves. There are plenty of people out there who would be willing to assist them, to the point of breaking the law and obfuscating efforts by the authorities to find them.

"And as pointed out over and over on these threads, the overwhelming majority of asylum-seekers are genuine."

Yes but a small portion aren't. How big does the bad fraction have to be? How big does the number of absconders have to be before it adds significantly to the problem, the costs, the public's opinion of asylum seekers and ultimately a hardening of policy against all asylum seekers, not just the bad fraction?

There is a history of abscondment in Australia. In fact this is exactly why we have detention centres - because people walked out of the original open centres, and it is why we have high walls and rajor wire - because people escaped from the first detention centres.

Horus is right. The link he posted is very telling: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200212/s747159.htm.

Yes this article refers to all asylum seekers in Australia. So why should the small portion that is made up of onshore asylum seekers be any different from the rest? The possible smaller portion of bad apples amongst them is not a good enough reason.

But the very notion of allowing free movement of asylum seekers in mainstream society is simply untenable because it does not take into account the all-important deterrence factor, which seems to be something that you just completely don't appreciate Bronwyn.

Now, could you please tell me why you think our offshore system of refugee determination and acceptance is "inefficient and inhumane" and apparently much worse than people coming here haphazardly on leaky boats at great expense rendered to people-smugglers.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bronwyn,
If such a large proportion of the arrivals are genuine asylum seekers
why did they not apply for asylum in Indonesia, Malaysia, Dubai, Cairo
or Islambad, some of which they will have passed through.

Could it be that they were not so desperate afterall ?

Your assumption that all or most of the Indosnesian boats were
unseaworthy is demonstratably incorrect.
The crew would not have taken them out if they thought there was an
unreasonable risk.

How do you answer that ?

No one is going to commit suicide just to try to get someone else
to Australia. The crew is probably unaware that they might spend a
few years in prison.

No, your reasoning is flawed.

Re the Tampa, unless I am greatly mistaken the Tampa was heading for
Sundra Strait, it would have been well out of their way to go to
Christmas Island. Have a look on a chart and see where Christmas
Island is located.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm

The figures here are quite interesting. It shows that with less
boat people, the Govt is taking refugees from various parts of the
world, including Burma/Laos, who don't have the money to pay
bribes, as Afghans and Iraqis do

Surely not Bronwyn. Surely you haven't desserted this thread, mid-discussion....again!?!?

There's a long way to go yet.

At the moment it is looking as though you have no answers for the questions that have been put you, and only one path to follow; the ol' Morgan done-a-runner-when-the-questions-get-too-hard path!

I see you are happily posting away elsewhere on this forum.

Our discussion is developing well. I've answered your questions and put further questions to you. We are not just rehashing the same stuff or exchanging insults with no substance, we are involved in a good whorthwhile exchange. I haven't let kindergarten-kid Morgan and first-grader Fracco corrupt this discussion. So come on, let's go at it...in the same respectful and tactful manner that we have in the past.

Remember this from your post of 24 September:

"So, dear Ludwig, no more retreating to the beach. Come back and participate in the debate you started. :)"

So dear Bronwyn, come back and participate in the debate that you have so passionately engaged in, up until three days ago.

"It shows that with less boat people, the Govt is taking refugees from various parts of the world, including Burma/Laos, who don't have the money to pay bribes, as Afghans and Iraqis do"

Good point Yabby.

This is exactly what Bronwyn's camp should be concentrating on - boosting Australia's offshore immigration program, so that more desperately needy refugees can be assisted in their home countries and brought to Australia where really necessary.

So let's close down the onshore route completely and boost our offshore program greatly, starting off by increasing our international aid effort to at least the UN-recommended 0.7% of GDP.

desserted? ah poo!

deserted |;>/

Dear Ludwig

I knew you'd do this. :) I wasn't 'desserting' anything. It was just that I'd already sent CJ to sleep and the thread appeared to have died.

I'll try and respond to your questions tonight. I'm starting a full time teaching contract soon and won't have a lot of time for OLO in the next few weeks, but I promise I'll get back to you eventually.

Rest assured, any silences from me will be down to time constraints and not an indication, as you like to think, that I'm stumped for responses. :)

Ludwig,
Do I assume that you have now come over to the "Force" from the dark side. i.e. you agree with taking *more* refugees? Oh drat Ludwig now thinks we should have more people in Aust. What? Oh gawd there goes a flying pig!

Ludwig that argument is self defeating or are you into sackcloth and ashes too?

Perhaps these refugees are fearful that they may spend years in a camp.

Anyone who has seen these camps will tell you they are awful places no work bugger all privacy, petty crime, some infiltrators in these camps are really there to profiteer, stand-over/protection merchants, spying for the respective home governments. Fear is the operative word
If they get rejected or even if they're accepted they are often afraid for their family and friends back home.

Can you really blame a father trying to short cuts for their families' welfare....wouldn't you, I have/would and what's more I haven't ever been that desperate. Hope/Pray you never will either.

BTW There is no reason why we don't do several things to improve their lot in parallel.

In the meantime Like CJ it's time for my afternoon grandpa nap.
ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz and several more I hope

Cheers pal ;-)

Bronwyn,
While you are at it, don't forget to answer my question.

Bazz

<< If such a large proportion of the arrivals are genuine asylum seekers why did they not apply for asylum in Indonesia, Malaysia, Dubai, Cairo or Islambad, some of which they will have passed through. Could it be that they were not so desperate afterall ? >>

None of these countries are signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention so are not obligated to process asylum seekers' claims in the way Australia is. Besides, there is no requirement in international law for refugees to seek asylum in the first country they come to.

<< Your assumption that all or most of the Indosnesian boats were unseaworthy is demonstratably incorrect. The crew would not have taken them out if they thought there was an unreasonable risk. How do you answer that ? >>

A large proportion are very unsafe. The crew is often just as desperate for an income as the asylum seekers are for a safe place to live. They will take on risk.

<< No one is going to commit suicide just to try to get someone else to Australia. The crew is probably unaware that they might spend a few years in prison. No, your reasoning is flawed. >>

They are often perfectly aware of the penalties, but are prepared to take the risk. Many are Indonesian fishermen who've been banned from fishing in waters they've fished in all their lives and their forefathers before them. They have no other way of feeding their families but to put their only asset to another use.

<< Re the Tampa, unless I am greatly mistaken the Tampa was heading for Sundra Strait, it would have been well out of their way to go to Christmas Island. Have a look on a chart and see where Christmas Island is located. >>

Read the words of the captain himself - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1511903.stm I think we're both right. I do know that when the Howard Government ordered the captain to return the rescued asylum seekers to Indonesia, the Tampa was at that point a few hours from Christmas Island and 12-14 hours from Indonesia.

Ludwig

<< So Bronwyn, the number of deaths would be greater if there was a tight border-protection policy in place, compared to the loose policy we now have, would it? >>

In my opinion, yes. And not only would the deaths - when boats are turned around and when people are refouled back to danger - be greater, but the suffering of asylum seekers held in detention centres, refugee camps and 'warehousing' facilities would also increase.

<< Obviously if it was known around the world that this sort of entry strategy into Australia was just not on ... then the number of arrivals and people running into difficulty along the way would be tiny, compared to the much greater number of people and boats that are now on their way thanks to Krudd. >>

Howard's policies were never sustainable in the long-term. And besides they came at enormous cost to all involved, which I have pointed out to you many times. You over-estimate the success of Howard's policies. Even he knew they wouldn't hold forever, as world demand for places of asylum grew. Why else did he spend half a billion dollars building a high security detention centre on Christmas Island? He knew, like everyone else, that asylum seekers were going to continue arriving.

<< Now I don't for one moment condone the turning around of any boats or the refoulement of asylum seekers before they have had their claims assessed. >>

And yet that's exactly what happened under Howard. The refoulement is still continuing under Rudd. The IOM in Indonesia is returning Afghanis to war zones and it's receiving funding from the Australian Government to do so.

<< That presents us with a very difficult balancing act; to make the lives of those who are caught up in the middle of the malaise bearable while upholding strong deterrence to further arrivals. >>

You can't make their lives 'bearable' by detaining them indefinitely or sending them back to danger, and these are the only options available when maintaining a strong deterrent policy.

TBC - Right now I need some zzzzzzzzz.:)

Er…Bronwyn –correction!

Re “ None of these countries are signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention”

1) Cairo is the capital of Egypt, and Egypt is is is is is a signatory to the Refugee convention

2) Dubai is one of seven emirates in the The United Arab Emirates, and the UAI is also a signatory.

http://www.unhcr.se/Pdf/1951_Convention_states_parties.pdf

Talk about pre-programmed answers!

As I said before, your side of the house has little understanding of geography and
even less of most other things!

TBC

Bronwyn,
OK on the countries they may have past through not being
obliged to take in asylum seekers. Does it mean that the only country
available to them is on the other side of the world ? Really !
It streatches credibility.

As far as the condition of the boats, nothing you can say will alter
the fact that no fisherman will take a boat to sea knowing it is unseaworthy.
They are not suicidal bombers driven by fanaticism.
They expect either to return with the boat or spend some time in a
holiday camp in Darwin.

Why else would they put to sea ?

Horus, Bazz etc.
It seems to me that this discussion has polarised between the middle of the roaders (Bronwyn incl) and the 'pragmatic gutless'.

The PG's dress their views up with spurious arguments that deterring (boat) direct arriving refugees is in these refugees best interests. Couching Their reasons in terms like safer, staying in camps is less dangerous , more orderly, fairer to all refugees.

Their justification are the the usual 'it's cheaper' (for who?), 'We will be over run' ( the scaremongering standard, “yellow Hordes “? )
Then the creme d'la creme (excuse my French), “We (Australia), world need population control. As if the movement of 10,000 refugees would make a gnats testicles difference to anything. While ignoring the other un-invited, overstays etc.

They further advocate, all that is needed is to deter the seekers. While ignoring international charters using the questionable moral/ humane argument of justifying this by "well other's do it". Apparently two wrongs a right in international refugees charter. (which clause(s) indicate this is exclusion?). Nor We need to consider International opinions.

In short argue by unrealistic extremes and obfuscation.

What they really mean is they don't give a stuff what happens to refugees so long as we can still continue our 'selfish magic pudding' lifestyle unabated.

This clearly demonstrates their animalistic fascination with "winners and losers" a perversion of evolution. Specifically, 'survival of the fittest' (nothing to do with adaptable as writ).
These arguments exist only in a myopic, shallow, consequence challenged (plausible deniability) mind set.

If they had any courage of their conviction they would stop the dancing around and argue their mindset's logically consistent deterrent. Keep in mind, deterrents are like locks there to keep honest/non desperate people honest, outside of that don't work in the long run. That is bomb , obliterate a couple of boat fulls.
Oh yes it punishes the victim's but what's a few less if it discourages many

"I wasn't 'desserting' anything."

Hmmm. Three days absence Bronwyn, whereas you were posting like a woman possessed before that. And in tha time you put up a bunch of posts elsewhere. Anyway, I'm pleased to see that you are in it for the long haul this time.

"It was just that I'd already sent CJ to sleep and the thread appeared to have died."

Twasn't you who sent young KK Morgan to sleep. Twas me. My commonsense and calm reasoning was just tooo much for him to bear!

.
"Do I assume that you have now come over to the "Force" from the dark side. i.e. you agree with taking *more* refugees?"

Um, I always have advocated a greater refugee intake Xammy. Do your own checking of my early posts on this forum if you don't believe me.

"Oh drat Ludwig now thinks we should have more people in Aust. What?"

I've said it a whole bunch of times: we should at least double our refugee intake within a net-zero immigration intake. That is; around 25 000 refugees per year within a total immigration intake of around 30 000.

It seems that you need to request clarification of my views before you go forth and make regrettable statements. You clearly don't understand where I'm really coming from, even after all of our correspondence. So just ask straightforward questions and ye shall know what ye wants to know.

Then, lo and behold, I bet you will actually find that you and I hold a whole lot more in agreement than you currently think! (:>)

*As if the movement of 10,000 refugees would make a gnats testicles difference to anything.*

Examinator, you just can't help yourself! I really think that the
main points of this debate, are clearly beyond you.

We are not running the "old boys woodwork club" here, but discussing
the policies and their implementation, of a nation. So principles
matter, fairness matters, consistency matters etc.

Give me a reason why boat people should have preference over
those who can't afford to be boat people and are stuck in refugee
camps around the world? It seems to me that your wearing your
heart on your sleeve, simply overwhelms any sense of justice.

If you think that our refugee intake should be increased, you and
other Australians are free to make that case to Govt and the people.
Ludwig is correct, he has made exactly that case before, it seems
that others like Bronwyn simply don't read what he has clearly
stated before and so have I.

My point again. All refugees should be treated the same, first
boat past the line is not a fair or just way of deciding things.
Justice and fairness matter, consistency matter, when it comes
to Govt policy, as distinct from your woodwork club.

Next point, deterrents do in fact work. If there were no deterrents
for murder, rape of theft, believe me, a great deal more of them
would take place. People act in their own self interest and if
no boat people were accepted, they would stop trying. All that
our present Govt policy has done is encourage them, for the Aussie
cushy lifestyle is not far away, if they can pull it off.

So the solution is quite straightforward. Shut the trade down,
so that it pays nobody to sail here. Pay Indonesia to run a
refugee centre for all those who do try and are sent back. They
will have the same rights in terms of coming to Australia, as all
other refugees in refugee camps around the world.

Bronwyn,
Talk about need for sleep---judging by the arguments/evidence
you’ve offered, I think you’ve been asleep at the wheel for quite some time now.[LQTM]

---Re “There is no requirement in international law for [Illegal’s] to seek asylum in the first country”
There is no legal requirement –but there is an older, stronger, COMMON SENSE requirement.
If their motivation was genuine fear of persecution: a push factor --one could reasonable expect them to shelter in the first safe haven they came to.And, I would think, in most peoples eyes (though not yours, of course!) their credibility would suffer if they were seen to window shop for the most affluent safe haven.

---As for the unseaworthiness of the boats – you’re right about their status, but wrong about the causes – the boats were likely seaworthy at time of leaving port –but, funnily enough, boats have a way of becoming unseaworthy, if someone pours petrol over their decks and sets them alight, or goes after the engine with a hammer --- which is another reason why the perpetrators of such acts might rightly be called illegals.

---As for The Tampa story– there are a couple of chapters you skipped – the parts where the rescuees became the rogues and used threats of violence against the captain & crew to force the captain to take them in the direction of OZ rather than Indonesia, which is where he initially was going .I know these chapters are almost always left out in the progressives account of events, but they are a very important part of the story nevertheless ---and, yet another reason why they might rightly be termed, illegal

Examinator,
--Re “These camps are awful places “ ---I am sure they are . But if escape from awfulness was sufficient to qualify for entry to OZ -- half the world could roll up here -- and would, if Bronwyn had her way!

I would hazard a guess that most countries in the world are –awful places –when compared to OZ .

Which might be why an awful lot of Orientals and others are trying awfully hard to learn how to cook offal in artful ways, or why, others try awfully hard to orchestrate awe inspiring coiffure --because they have been told it will win them OZ residency.

And that is also probably why, a lot of such auspiring stayers like to peddle stories of awful racist attacks –since they have been sold on the idea that it may assist their case for residency: they must impress upon us the awfulness of their situation – and too right( though, actually, they were all too left) all the ee-aws were impressed –awfully impressed.

But, I do digress ,back to the issue.

Awfulness: if experience of awfulness was a pratique –some of the less privileged in OZ– might decide to come and squat on your(or Bronwyn’s ) lawn, or in your( or Bronwyn’s) garage , since your emplacements’ are less awful than theirs. Actually, it might be a awfully good as it would give you and Bronwyn a much needed wake up call – no more zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz thinking! [LOL

Police report states that the SIEV 36 was deliberately set on fire by one of the passengers.

Why am I not surprised?

Just another demonstration of the selfishness of these illegal aliens.

They will cheat, lie, bribe and callously endanger the lives of all passengers and our service personel, so they can force themselves on us.

Then we reward them with permanent residency!

Yabby

<< Ludwig is correct, he has made exactly that case before, it seems that others like Bronwyn simply don't read what he has clearly stated ... >>

Ludwig and I agreed in our very first OLO discussion about asylum-seekers that Australia should accept more. We agreed that Australia's humanitarian intake should be increased to between twenty and thirty thousand and that its general migration intake should be scaled right back to near zero. Our point of difference relates to Ludwig's obsession with 'stopping the boats'.

<< All refugees should be treated the same, first boat past the line is not a fair or just way of deciding things. >>

There's no fairness in confining refugees to waiting helplessly in squalid and overcrowded refugee camps. There's no queue for them to wait in. Most wait in these camps for years on end and for many it's decades on end and they quite correctly fear they'll live out their lives in these camps. I wouldn't do it if I was them. Nor would you. You're not interested in asylum seekers being treated fairly and justly, Yabby, so cut the pretence.

<< Next point, deterrents do in fact work. If there were no deterrents for murder, rape of theft, believe me, a great deal more of them would take place. >>

It's well documented that people in desperate circumstances rarely pay heed to the harsh penalty that might befall them if caught. Likewise, asylum-seekers in desperate life-and-death situations aren't necessarily going to be put off by tough deterrence policies.

<< So the solution is quite straightforward. Shut the trade down, so that it pays nobody to sail here. >>

Yeah, let's put a sign up, hey Yabby. That should do the trick. The whole crux of our discussion here is that 'shutting down the trade' in effect means sending asylum seekers to their deaths. Neither you nor Ludwig have explained yet how we can 'stop the boats' without exacting a huge cost in lives and misery. I think Ludwig at least cares about this dilemma, but I doubt you do.

*There's no fairness in confining refugees to waiting helplessly in squalid and overcrowded refugee camps. There's no queue for them to wait in*

Bronwyn, its reality for 20 million. If you really cared about them,
which you seemingly don't, you would propose an efficient refugee
intake system, with the surplus funds, now wasted, going to improve
conditions for those 20 million. Many Australians might agree with
you. I certainly would and no doubt Ludwig would too.

I have told you how to shut the trade down. People are not going
to risk tens of thousands of Dollars, if their chance of success is
zero and is known to be zero.

*You're not interested in asylum seekers being treated fairly and justly, Yabby, so cut the pretence.*

Bronwyn I suggest that you cut your stupidity and arrogance. Just
because I propose that money is spent wisely, efficiently, to help
the most people, you are claiming to know what I am thinking.
Brownwyn, cut the stupidity, my point is seemingly going over your
head.

*The whole crux of our discussion here is that 'shutting down the trade' in effect means sending asylum seekers to their deaths*

Rubbish. Billions of people live in the third world, they are
not all dying due to living there. 20 million live in Iraq,
the same number in Afghanistan. The reality is, they can't
all live in Australia. You are welcome to put your case to Govt
to increase refugees from camps, but the fact remains that the
boat trade is a hugely wasteful use of resources, its unfair and
its time it ended. There is only one way to do that. Shut it down
and treat all refugees the same

Ludwig :<< So Bronwyn, the number of deaths would be greater if there was a tight border-protection policy in place, compared to the loose policy we now have, would it? >>

Bronwyn: "In my opinion, yes."

Surely Bronwyn you can appreciate my point that if the scale of arrivals was considerably larger than it currently is, compared to what it would be if Howard's policy remained in place, then the rate of mishap would be considerably greater. Simply a significantly larger scale of onshore-asylum seeker movement, all else being equal, would in all probability lead to a significantly higher accident and death rate. I don't know how you could argue otherwise.

"And not only would the deaths - when boats are turned around and when people are refouled back to danger - be greater, but the suffering of asylum seekers held in detention centres, refugee camps and 'warehousing' facilities would also increase."

I've stated that I am against refoulement or the turning around of boats if it would lead to great hardship and that those caught up in the middle of a policy-change need to be dealt with and not just turned around or sent home without any refugee-determining process. When Howard tightened up border-protection policy, this is exactly what he did; he accommodated those caught in the middle, while upholding the vitally important deterrence factor.

All asylum-seekers need to be sent to detention centres, as a fundamental part of the deterrence factor. Bronwyn, you have yet to give me any idea of how you would treat asylum seekers while upholding a strong deterrence factor, so that the number of arrivals doesn't blow out to hundreds of thousands per annum, with the resultant backlash against them that I explained a few posts back.

This balance between treating asylum seekers as well as we can while upholding the deterrence factor is one of the most important points in this discussion. But it is one that you don't seem to appreciate at all!

I've basically repeated what I've already said on this thread. But it seems that repetition is necessary sometimes.

"Howard's policies were never sustainable in the long-term."

Yes they were! Most definitely!

Onshore asylum seeker movement had practically stopped. That was a sustainable outcome!

"And besides they came at enormous cost..."

Sure did! Enormous cost to treat all onshore asylum seekers in a decent manner, to process their claims, to accommodate most of them, etc. That sort of cost wasn't sustainable. It had to be wound back. If it had continued, the Australian public would have demanded that their politicians take a much harder line with boat people and stop their arrivals regardless of their wellbeing.

That cost was never supposed to be ongoing. It was meant to be a short-term expense, that steadily reduced as the number of arrivals fell away, which is just what happened.

"Why else did he spend half a billion dollars building a high security detention centre on Christmas Island? He knew, like everyone else, that asylum seekers were going to continue arriving."

No! Because there were a lot of people en route at the time and strong indications that it would be while before it significantly declined, and he wanted to make sure that the 'Pacific Solution' worked as a strong deterrence factor and that it wasn't undermined by asylum seekers having to be brought to the mainland.

Ludwig: << That presents us with a very difficult balancing act; to make the lives of those who are caught up in the middle of the malaise bearable while upholding strong deterrence to further arrivals. >>

Bronwyn: "You can't make their lives 'bearable' by detaining them indefinitely or sending them back to danger, and these are the only options available when maintaining a strong deterrent policy."

We can't just send them back to dangerous environments, so the only option is detention to the extent that would-be asylum seekers will reconsider their journey. That can only mean detention to the extent that considerably inconveniences asylum seekers and makes their lives less bearable to some extent - maybe to quite significant extent for some of them. Not at all desirable, but what else do we do?

That reality cannot be escaped, as far as I can see. And now it seems that you concur. Yahoo, we seem to have reached another major blockage in this discussion and come to an agreement!

So then, what is more important to you Bronwyn - to treat all asylum seekers in the way that you have indicated you desire and incur a massive increase in arrivals as a result, with the inevitable hardening of attitudes and policy against them, or treat those currently caught up in the debacle in a good but compromised manner in order to prevent a significant increase in arrivals?

It seems that you now appreciate that it comes down to this choice. So what would you do?

For those following this thread. Here is a couple more interesting articles from todays media

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/rise-of-refugees-fleeing-war-zones/story-e6freuy9-1225781820179

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26152568-16382,00.html

Ludwig,
I am afraid that Bronwyn just does not want to see the logic
in the argument about detering people smugglers.

At present there is a huge surplus of ships for lease or sale.
My concern is that the smugglers who must know this will either lease
or buy a small ship of say 10,000 tons or more and fill it with people
and like was done in New York run it ashore somewhere, perhaps in
Queensland, and let 10,000 illegals jump ashore and run.

Bronwyn might think that would be a good idea. Certainly safer.

In the New York instance the ship left China went around the Cape and
then up to New York. Once you get to ships that size they could land
anywhere in Australia and could approach without detection.

Bazz

<< Ludwig, I am afraid that Bronwyn just does not want to see the logic in the argument about detering people smugglers. >>

I understand the deterrence logic. I agree with you that it would be better all round if we didn't have boats arriving, but we do and we will continue to do so whilever the world remains riddled with danger zones as it is now.

<< At present there is a huge surplus of ships for lease or sale. My concern is that the smugglers who must know this will either lease or buy a small ship of say 10,000 tons or more and fill it with people and like was done in New York run it ashore somewhere, perhaps in Queensland, and let 10,000 illegals jump ashore and run. >>

Well, Bazz, while you lay awake worrying about that highly improbable scenario, I'll worry about the very definite reality for the millions of the world's refugees as wealthy countries put up the barricades and shut them out. I'll worry about the young men, women and children who we are condemning to living out their lives in overcrowded and disease-ridden refugee camps, with little in the way of physical nourishment and even less in the way of hope for a life outside their squalid prison.

I'll hope they don't know that there's no queue and no fair way out of those places. I'll hope they at least have the peace of mind that their turn will come, even though for the overwhelming majority of course it won't.

If you found your homeland turned into in a war-zone and happened to belong to an ethnic grouping no longer safe from persecution in the new state of lawlessness, you'd do whatever it took to get yourself and your family to safety. And I'll guarantee your plans wouldn't include decades of waiting in a refugee camp.

TBC

Bazz (cont)

You've been born lucky, Bazz. We all have. What gives any of us the right to consign others to certain misery and probable death, while we live the high life built on resources very often plundered from the same countries these people can no longer live in?

Yes, Bazz, you worry about that big ship. Meanwhile, I'll worry about the real issues of fairness and justice.

Ludwig

<< Surely Bronwyn you can appreciate my point that if the scale of arrivals was considerably larger than it currently is, compared to what it would be if Howard's policy remained in place, then the rate of mishap would be considerably greater. >>

No, I can't, because it's a false assumption. I agree a few more might lose their lives in risky boat journeys, but not the numbers you're suggesting.

When faced with the option of risking an arduous journey at sea or spending years in a detention centre or refugee camp, which is their only other option, asylum seekers choose as you or I would to take the risk. A few might drown, but they drown with hope in their hearts. Your ‘stop the boats’ alternative means that all will experience a slow dying process as they wait neglected and forgotten in some hellhole detention centre. Besides, your alternative involves turning boats around which is also high risk and has already resulted in many deaths.

<< When Howard tightened up border-protection policy, this is exactly what he did; he accommodated those caught in the middle, while upholding the vitally important deterrence factor. >>

Tell me, Ludwig, how did he 'accommodate those caught in the middle'? He locked them up indefinitely or refouled them back to danger. There weren't any other options. Stop using false and innocuous-sounding euphemisms. He did not 'accommodate' them at all. He inflicted enormous hardship and suffering on people who had already suffered more than you or I could ever imagine.

TBC (at some later stage)

Just a word of support for Bronwyn, who seems to be about the only recent participant in this thread who I'd want as a neigbour.

The rest of you seem to be doing little more than engaging in paranoid "what if" fantasies, that reflect more upon your own miserable and fearful existences than the reality of a relative handful of 'boat people' who manage, against all odds, to legally claim asylum in Australia.

Ludwig - I haven't "run away" from anything. Rather, I simply couldn't be bothered again pandering to your ego by playing hateful games with you and the excuses for humanity you apparently like to attract.

We've answered all your questions time and again. You just don't like the answers, so you keep on rehashing your paranoid and misanthropic tripe - knowing, of course, that there is an unfortunate audience at OLO who will chime in every time you blow your dog-whistle.

On this subject, both you and they suck - bigtime.

*I'll worry about the real issues of fairness and justice.*

If you worried about the real issues of fairness and justice Bronwyn,
your focus would be on all of them and how available funds are spent
to help as many as possible, not just focus on the fortunate few,
many of whom find this all a great excuse for a cushy life in the
West. Your focus would be on those with nothing, stuck in camps.
Clearly its not.

Fact is the answer is not to move them all to the West, but to sort
out problems in their home countries and those countries that adjoin
them. Millions of Afghans returned to Afghanistan, once the Taliban
were overpowered. Iraq is slowly returning to some kind of normality,
20 million live there and manage, even if not at your
standard of cushy lifestyle.

Millions of Mexicans and Africans don't head north for political
reasons, but for financial reasons. They want to make a quid.
They are desperate to make a quid!

So the fact remains that most refugees in fact can return to their
home countries, once things have calmed down and are sorted out.

By your logic, if Australia was a warzone, we should all flee
somewhere else. Not friggin likely apart from a few cowards. Most
people stay to improve their country, as did the British, as did
the Germans, as did people in most nations who have gone to war.

Bronwyn,
It is not fanciful that large ships could be used. It has been done a
number of times in the Mediterranean.
It seems to me to be the next logical step in the people smuggling
industry.
Look at it as business, they have an almost unlimited potential clientel.
The navy can easily track the small fishing boats and recognise them for what they are.
A registed ship on a voyage and with a declared cargo and course would
be seen as just another tramp steamer. A flyover would not see the
passengers inside or in the hold.

The profit for the voyage would be much greater.
The crew could hold Australian visas and leave the ship in a boat
and come ashore and be aboard an aircraft before anyone was aware
as to what was going on.
The owner would have all the worry and expense in regaining the
ship and would never find the charter crew.

It has been done before and it is the next logical part of the
business plan.
I know it sounds fanciful but the government would be remiss for
not taking it into account, but then politicians will not talk
about uncomfortable problems except global warming where there are
votes in it for them.

"Not friggin likely, apart from a few cowards"? Are you serious?
If my family were endangered by an outbreak of war around my home, I would regard it as number one priority, to get my family to safety.
BTW, if my children were on a sinking boat, the first thing I would do, is THROW THEM OVERBOARD!
With life preservers, or at least flotsam, if nothing else were available.
You might consider risking or sacrificing your family's lives courageous and noble, Yabby, but I beg to differ.

And here’s a sports update for those who have just joined us :

In the first match of the day, Yabby defeated Bronwyn 6-0, 6-0, 6-0.
In that match Bronwyn foot faulted a number of times –each time her foot was squarely in her mouth.
---“There's no fairness in confining refugees to waiting helplessly in squalid and overcrowded refugee camps.” --- but strangely enough, if OZ let’s 30, 000 it will somehow be all OK!
----“Experience elsewhere indicates little or no risk of absconding”
---“Cairo” is not a signatory --country --! to the refugee convention.

Now in the reverse rubber, Ludwig’s currently leading Bronwyn 6-0 ,6-0 , 5-0 and is serving for the match.
Bronwyn is battling on , though she has had a few Venus Williams moments .

And, for those who missed last nights results :
CJ Morgan did a John McEnroe and stormed off the court
--- “[Ludwig’s] scurrilous 'dog-whistle' comment… the odious Liberal MP …a few of our usual mutts have responded… spewing out a litany of lies…..wingnut radio shock jocks…Banjo's hateful drivel is classic … Ludwig should be thoroughly ashamed of himself - as should Horus's haters…Ludwig's scurrilous dog whistle…Speaking of whom - I don't think I'll be engaging with the old misanthrope much any more after these latest antics”.

Examinator, well, he hit a couple of good shots
---“It's time for Australia to face the facts we have Party governments in this country and it is their collectively agreed policies that are at issue no the personalities per se.”
And, one good ace
---“True the risk of boating people here is unacceptable exploitism”
but was later disqualified for prolonged examinating of his ace, on court.

More updates later in the bulletin .
…………………………………..

CJ Morgan
Re “We've answered all your questions time and again” --In your dreams!.

*If my family were endangered by an outbreak of war around my home, I would regard it as number one priority, to get my family to safety*

So Grim, you would rush off half way around the world for months
on end and leave your family in the war zone? Think about it,
most boat people are men!

Or would you move them to a different part of the country, where
there is not all that shooting going on? 20 million live in
Afghanistan, they are not all being shot. They are not all fleeing
the country either. In fact millions returned, once the Taliban
were thrown from power.

For the benefit of those who naively believe such things as:
--“the numbers we're dealing with are small”
--“it 's the push factors, not the pull factors
--No one wants to leave their home country unless circumstance are unbearable.

Note in particular this paragraph –and consider its implications.

“Tandonnet tells me that surveys of North Africans show a staggering 80per cent want to move to Europe or North America. He thinks there are perhaps 500,000 illegal immigrants a year to Europe.”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26156779-17062,00.html

The very concept of nationalism is comparatively recent; probably dating back no more than 200 years in western European countries having (more or less) well established borders.
Certainly, the modern nation of Australia is fortunate to have very well delineated borders in our coastlines.
The most strife torn countries in Africa, the middle east and eastern Europe virtually all had borders arbitrarily imposed by Colonial powers, with scant regard for ethnicity.
To expect the inhabitants of such countries to feel national pride or loyalty is a bit rich.
Tribalism, on the other hand can survive completely independently of geography, as the Jews have proven for thousands of years.
Australia's problem is that it is a great place to live. Of course people want to come here; I'm certain if I were living in Iraq or Afghanistan, I'd want to come here.
The only real way to stop people wanting to come here is to make our nation a less pleasant, less egalitarian, less of a 'fair go' sort of place; which appears to be precisely what we are doing.
I think the cost is too high, and the terrorists and malcontents are beating us.

"I understand the deterrence logic. I agree with you that it would be better all round if we didn't have boats arriving, but we do and we will continue to do so whilever the world remains riddled with danger zones as it is now."

Excellent Bronwyn. So then you presumably appreciate that if we don't have a strong deterrence regime, we will quickly get a big increase in the number of arrivals, which could escalate enormously.

So, while some may continue to come no matter how strong the deterrence factor, short of turning all boats around or sinking them, it is of the utmost importance that the numbers of arrivals be kept very small or as you agree, preferably nil.

To the next point then: the way that you desire to treat all asylum seekers sits at stark odds with a strong deterrence factor. So how would you treat them in keeping with the deterrence factor?

There is another major question that I asked earlier that you haven't addressed -

"...could you please tell me why you think our offshore system of refugee determination and acceptance is "inefficient and inhumane" and apparently much worse than people coming here haphazardly on leaky boats at great expense rendered to people-smugglers."

Ludwig: << When Howard tightened up border-protection policy, this is exactly what he did; he accommodated those caught in the middle, while upholding the vitally important deterrence factor. >>

Bronwyn: "Tell me, Ludwig, how did he 'accommodate those caught in the middle'? He locked them up indefinitely or refouled them back to danger. There weren't any other options. Stop using false and innocuous-sounding euphemisms. He did not 'accommodate' them at all. He inflicted enormous hardship and suffering on people who had already suffered more than you or I could ever imagine."

Come on Bronwyn, he accommodated them, by anyone's definition, as opposed to sending them back to the open water, Indonesia or home to hell in their countries of origin.

They were NOT locked up indefinitely! Most remained in detention for a relatively short time. Those that destroyed their documentation or for whom it was otherwise difficult to determine the veracity of their refugee claims spent longer in detention, with a small minority of cases taking a very long time.

Howard did NOT inflict enormous hardship on anyone!! He would have done if he'd turned them around. He did what he had to do while making sure that the 'floodgates' didn't open. You appreciate my deterrence argument. So you must know that Howard simply did what he had to do in order the uphold the deterrence factor while dealing with those caught in the middle in as decent a manner as possible.

"There weren't any other options."

YES!! !! !!

What else could he have done? Howard didn't have to be a genius to quickly figure out what had to be done.

I don't know why you insist in condeming Howard over this issue. Isn't it obvious at this stage of our discussions that he just could not have brought them all to the mainland and let them move freely in mainstream society without spurring an almighty increase in the number of arrivals, with an enormous political backlash and hardening of action against asylum seekers ensuing.

Horus

<< Cairo is the capital of Egypt, and Egypt is is is is is a signatory to the Refugee convention >>

It is, but it no longer honours its obligations as a signatory. Its border forces shoot asylum seekers and it also routinely refoules asylum seekers back to danger.

Banjo

<< Police report states that the SIEV 36 was deliberately set on fire by one of the passengers. Why am I not surprised? Just another demonstration of the selfishness of these illegal aliens. They will cheat, lie, bribe and callously endanger the lives of all passengers and our service personel, so they can force themselves on us. >>

Calm down, Banjo. It’s far too early to make the claims you’ve made here. We’ve had one inquiry - conducted by the Northern Territory police. They’ve refused to reveal parts of the evidence and have handed down an inconclusive report, raising far more questions than it gives answers.

Firstly, why is it that film footage of the events showing Naval personnel kicking victims away from rescue boats cannot be seen or considered as evidence?

Secondly, why were the asylum seekers ordered, as witnesses have reported, to leave Australian waters and return to Indonesia?

Thirdly, why were these scared and traumatised men, in a clear breach of naval protocol, secured on deck for 24 hours next to leaking petrol drums and allowed to smoke?

You can trumpet 'illegal aliens' all you like, Banjo. The truth is we’ve got no real answers yet. We might have, once the naval investigation and the Coronial inquiry are complete, but we certainly don't at this stage.

Bronwyn, you have no credibility.

On 01/10 in answering the question from Bazz as to why the Refugees had not sought sanctuary closer to their country of origin, you said
“None of these countries are signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention”

When it was pointed out to you that Egypt is indeed a signatory , this was your response ( on 06/10)
“It is, but it no longer honours its obligations as a signatory. Its border forces shoot asylum seekers and it also routinely refoules asylum seekers back to danger.”

Now was it a case that you just didn’t know that Cairo was not a country, but the capital of Egypt, And when you looked up the list of signatories couldn’t find “Cairo” so assumed it a non-signatory
[ a dud in geography!]

Or, was it that you gave the standard wrote-learned response –without thought, or care, as to its validity—hoping no one would know better [ a dud in ethics!]

And, what’s even worse is, your second attempt is also wrong.

Because, Egypt does accept refugees and has quite a few within its borders. I refer you to the UNHCR publication “Global Trends 2008” page 16 --which you’re sometimes fond of sermonising from –when it appears to assist your argument.

The key here is that while Egypt does accept refugees, but it doesn’t treat them like little lost sheep – Egypt doesn’t produce many little Bo Peeps.So guess what, the “refugees” often choose to bypass Egypt and go to Europe, the Americas or to OZ, where the pastures are richer and the Bo Peeps thicker.

And there is another thing I noted . In your lecturing of Banjo you are at great pains to instil in him the need not to make pre-judgements, that could tarnish the refugee image But you seem not to have the slightest qualm about vilifying a whole nation, Egypt, Aust border security personnel, Howard, Rudd in fact it seems its open season on everyone and anyone excepting your little flock

Horus

<< But you seem not to have the slightest qualm about vilifying a whole nation, Egypt, Aust border security personnel, Howard, Rudd in fact it seems its open season on everyone and anyone excepting your little flock. >>

I'm not villifying anyone. In the case of Egypt, I'm stating fact. I never said the shootings and refoulements applied to the whole of the country or to all refugees, but they do occur nonetheless. Yes, I did make a mistake regarding the signatory nations. It was a mistake arising out of carelessness, and was not a deliberate intention to mislead, as you've implied here. Besides, it's very much a minor point in this discussion and not worth all the attention you've given it.

There's a hateful tone to your writing. You'd obviously take great pleasure in pointing out my mistakes and yet, considering the many different points I've made on this thread, you've found very few. That's made all the more obvious when you make a big song and dance over one small error.

As for my statements regarding border personnel, they're all well documented and once again I'm not saying they apply to all. I'm not engaging in vilification as you claim. I'm criticising policy.

As for vilifying Howard and Rudd? Get real. I'm discussing their refugee policies. Vilification?? If that's vilification, then you've been vilifying me big time.

Vilification? If I could be bothered trawling through your posts, which I can't, I bet I'd find plenty of examples of you vilifying refugees.

Bronwyn, you are still plugging away on this thread. Great. But you have passed over my questions.....that I asked four days ago ( :>/

This opinion of yours that our offshore refugee program stinks is defnitely something that needs to be explored.

The headline on the front page of this weekend's "Weekend Australian",
kind of says it all.

"From Kabul to Colombo, refugees know that Rudd has opened the door"

Some interesting stories follow.

These days refugees have email, mobile phones, etc, they are informed.

For Kevi to now blame people smugglers, when his own policies are
the problem, is just more political spin, to satisfy the bleeding
heart voters of this world, such as Bronwyn, CJ etc.

It comes down to cold hearted smart political calculation. In the
end, that may yet mean that they shoot themselves in their own
proverbial foot. No wonder they are dashing off to Colombo to perform street
theatre to try and discourage the masses from jumping on a boat.

Ludwig

<< Bronwyn, you are still plugging away on this thread. Great. But you have passed over my questions.....that I asked four days ago ( :>/ >>

Sorry, Ludwig, I don't have much OLO time mid week at the moment. I was just putting out spot fires and always intended to respond to you when I had more time. :)

<< Excellent Bronwyn. So then you presumably appreciate that if we don't have a strong deterrence regime, we will quickly get a big increase in the number of arrivals, which could escalate enormously. >>

I said I UNDERSTOOD the deterrence logic. I didn't say I agreed with it. There is a difference. Deterrence involves inflicting cruelty on desperate and vulnerable people and I will never agree to it as a policy direction in any shape or form. You twisted my words and jumped to conclusions that just weren't there. I've argued right through this thread and many others that the policy of deterring asylum seekers is cruel and inhumane. I'm hardly going to turn around now and suddenly agree with you that we need a "strong deterrence regime". How stupid do you think I am? :)

<< So, while some may continue to come no matter how strong the deterrence factor, short of turning all boats around or sinking them, it is of the utmost importance that the numbers of arrivals be kept very small or as you agree, preferably nil. >>

Again, dear Ludwig,I didn’t agree to this at all. :) I agreed with you and Bazz that it would be preferable all around if boats didn't arrive, but I went on to say that while the world is as unstable as it is now asylum seekers will continue to seek safety via boat. Stating as I did that in an ideal world we wouldn't have desperate people forced to leave their homelands in leaky boats doesn't mean I'm prepared to accept the measures required to achieve a situation of "nil" arrivals.

(To be continued)

Ludwig (continued)

I've made it clear all along that deterrence can't be achieved without inflicting unacceptable levels of cruelty and death upon people seeking our assistance. It might be the convenient option, but I will never agree to it, nor will others who understand what it entails in practice.

The Rudd Government is currently embarking on a huge advertising blitz in Sri Lanka to warn Sri Lankan asylum seekers about being conned by unscrupulous people smugglers, about the perils of trying to reach Australia by boat and of the strong likelihood they will be returned to Sri Lanka anyway. This is as much deterrence as I can stomach and even this leaves me cold. It does nothing to assist these Sri Lankan refugees desperate to find safety and displays callous indifference to their true circumstances. For the vast majority of them, the risk of drowning is nothing compared to the certainty of torture and death they face in their homeland.

<< To the next point then: the way that you desire to treat all asylum seekers sits at stark odds with a strong deterrence factor. So how would you treat them in keeping with the deterrence factor? >>

As I’ve just stated, I don’t agree with a ‘STRONG deterrence factor’ so there IS no conflict. My comments in a previous post, where I outlined a preferred system of initial onshore detention for conducting health and security checks, to be followed by monitored community residency while claims are being processed, still stands. Technology today allows for extremely reliable tracking of people if that is what is required for acceptance of this policy shift within the Australian community.

<< There is another major question that I asked earlier that you haven't addressed - "...could you please tell me why you think our offshore system of refugee determination and acceptance is ‘inefficient and inhumane’…" >>

I’ve made this point before, but will repeat it. :) It’s inefficient in that it’s hugely expensive to be constantly transporting food and personnel via the four-hour plane trip needed to reach Christmas Island.

(To be continued)

Ludwig (continued)

It’s inhumane in that it denies asylum seekers the access they need to legal advice and community support. Again, whatever is provided, and the Rudd Government is at least making an effort that the Howard Government never did, has to be flown in and out at huge cost to the taxpayer. Providing support costs the government very little when detention occurs in places like Villawood in Sydney where assistance is given by volunteers who meet their own costs. Offshore detention is also inhumane in that asylum seekers are denied the right of appeal, which should be a basic right in any detention process. The Rudd Government has already deported over seventy asylum seekers that I know of from Christmas Island, two of whom I know have suffered torture on arrival in Sri Lanka and the rest, most of whom are Indonesians, as far as I know have not been monitored. None of these people had any avenue of appeal.

<< Come on Bronwyn, he accommodated them, by anyone's definition, as opposed to sending them back to the open water, Indonesia or home to hell in their countries of origin. >>

Howard’s ‘accommodating’ of asylum seekers, Ludwig, did indeed involve ‘sending them back to the open water, Indonesia or home to hell in their countries of origin.’ He did all three, without care or scrutiny. We know people drowned and we know people met their deaths when refouled back to danger, but to this day nobody knows how many lost their lives or how many still live in fear of death even now, because of the secrecy and the complete absence of any monitoring of returned asylum seekers by the Howard Government.

<< They were NOT locked up indefinitely! Most remained in detention for a relatively short time. Those that destroyed their documentation or for whom it was otherwise difficult to determine the veracity of their refugee claims spent longer in detention, with a small minority of cases taking a very long time. >>

With respect, dear Ludwig, they WERE locked up indefinitely, all of them.

(To be continued)

Ludwig (Continued)

Quite apart from the fact they’d committed no crime and shouldn’t have been locked up in the first place, there were never any specifications given as to how long they’d be there. The uncertainty and suffering they endured drove many of them to insanity and many battle mental heath issues to this day. Thousands spent at least two or three years locked up indefinitely and many spent five, six, or seven years locked up. I don’t think you have any real understanding of the impact this has on already traumatised people.

<< Howard did NOT inflict enormous hardship on anyone!! He would have done if he'd turned them around. >>

As I’ve said many times, he DID turn them around, and he certainly DID inflict enormous suffering on many thousands of innocent and vulnerable people. I’ve already detailed how he did this and am not going over it again. Quite apart from the suffering that occurred on our shores and in offshore detention in the name of deterrence, those who Howard actually deterred from coming in the first place and there’s no way of knowing how many that would be, would most probably have suffered, and no doubt continue to suffer, more in a refugee or holding camp than they would have if they’d been able to make the trip by boat.

I think we have about reached the stage we always do, Ludwig, where we will have to agree to disagree. I’m happy to defend my position but I don’t want to keep repeating myself and I certainly don’t want to agree to consensus on your terms. :) Assisting refugees who arrive on our shore might not be the easy option, but it is the right one. Deterring them from coming sounds innocuous enough, but in practice can only occur through inflicting cruelty and death, and besides which will never be sustainable while ever war atrocities occur within our region and more broadly.

Very possibly NOT to be continued. :)

Bronwyn still doesen't get it, that her bleeding heart solution
is the very cause of the problem. For the easier that you make
it, the more people will take the risk of a leaky boat,
threatening their own lives.

That's become quite clear in Europe, where economic migrants
from Nigeria, Ghana and other African countries, have been
flooding in, after risking their lives across the desert,
where many die.

Italy has finally had enough and are turning boats around,
sending them back to Lybia. People are taking the risk,
because others they know got through and the Western cushy
lifestyle is clearly enough of an attraction for people
to risk their lives.

So simple, just shut the trade down, then people won't
risk their lives, it won't be worth their while to do so.

Our bleeding hearts have already done enough damage.

Yabby & Ludwig,
I am afraid Bronwyn will not accept logic, she appears to operate on emotion only.
That her emotion gets her into illogical and cruel positions seems to
have bypassed her thoughts altogether.

She seems to consider them to be all asylum seekers even though they
have been through numerous countries and it seems that only a small
percentage were under threat anyway.

She still has not explained why, if as she states that the boats are
not seaworthy, the crews would take them out anyway.
It does not matter how badly you need the money, you are not going
to sea in an unseaworthy boat.
Remember these crewman are fishermen, they might even know the boat
and perhaps even own it. No, those that sink are almost entirely
scuttled and is probably part of the deal with the people smugglers.

Bronwyn, don't be so gullible.

Bronwyn, you have the patience of a saint. Thanks for summarising so well the reasons why Australia is legally and morally obliged to accept legitimate asylum seekers and to treat them humanely when they arrive. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm not inclined to reiterate the same arguments every time some mendacious misanthrope blows his dog whistle at OLO.

Mind you, it's quite fascinating to read the disingenuous responses that you elicit from the heartless bastard contingent, who quite laughably attempt to frame their responses to your cogent arguments in terms that disguise their utter disregard for the welfare of genuine refugees.

A word of warning: don't give Ludwig any clues about your physical location - he might just turn up 'coincidentally' around the corner and want to meet with you.

CJ

<< Bronwyn, you have the patience of a saint. >>

Well, I must say 'Saint Bronwyn' certainly sounds better than Forrest's 'Mother Superior'. :)

<< Thanks for summarising so well the reasons why Australia is legally and morally obliged to accept legitimate asylum seekers and to treat them humanely when they arrive. >>

High praise indeed from a past master - you do realise I hope that it was your dogged persistence on the Ten Thousand Boats thread that showed me the value of sticking these threads out to the very end. I’d been away at the time so read that thread in one sitting and it really drove home the importance of having at least one voice of reason stay the distance to speak up for fairness and justice. Like you though, I don’t know if I could come at it again any time soon. Perhaps Examinator or Fractelle will carry the baton next time. :)

<< A word of warning: don't give Ludwig any clues about your physical location - he might just turn up 'coincidentally' around the corner and want to meet with you. >>

LOL. Yes, Ludwig has kind of ‘stalked’ me over this, but I don’t have any real fear it will extend beyond the confines of OLO. Besides which, you can rest assured even though I’ve probably given enough clues over the years to locate my whereabouts in a general sense, the one piece of information that would do it precisely will never be divulged.

From my early days on OLO, Ludwig struck me as a person with a conscience. We’ve always disagreed over this issue but can at least thrash out our differences civilly.

No, I have no qualms at all about living in the same state as Ludwig. I'm eternally grateful though that a vast continent separates me from Yabby!

Yes, I know, Yabby, you wouldn’t stalk ME if I was the last female on earth, but I sleep better knowing you're a long way away just the same. :)

* but I sleep better knowing you're a long way away just the same. :)*

ROFL Bronwyn, many thanks for the compliments! We know what you
emotionally engulfed types are really like, you can't help yourselves
as you rush off to follow your feelings.

So knowing that there is a continent between us, as you perhaps
could not help yourself, must be comforting for you :)

FYI it doesent work, I've had many advances from emotionally
engulfed females and I simply don't have the patience, they drive
me frigging nuts.

Back to the topic. Given limited resources, its interesting that
my proposal would be the most cost effective, so help the maximum
number of refugees in a manner that treats then all equally and it
would not discriminate between men and women.

Neither you nor CJ have been able to show the same, but then
wearing your heart on your sleeve is hardly about reasoning about
emotions, more like simply following your feelings, however
irrational.

Bronwyn

Just to let you know your efforts are not wasted, I admire the rational and reasoned way you have presented the facts regarding people seeking refuge, both here in Australia and overseas. All I could offer would be the same facts. Rest assured while Ludwig, Yabby et al continue to wax hysterical over a tiny percentage of boat people and actively wish them harm, is evident to any reader of OLO pages.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/survivors-of-boat-explosion-granted-refugee-status-20091011-gsdx.html

" ALL 42 Afghan asylum seekers who survived the explosion and fire on their vessel off Ashmore Reef in April will be granted refugee status.

It is understood that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship will grant permanent protection visas to the 42 this week.

Officials say the asylum seekers' claims for refuge were thoroughly examined and all had rigorous health, security and identity checks. ''The granting of protection visas will help the group, who have undergone a traumatic ordeal, to settle in the community and recover their physical and mental health,'' they said. "

All 42 people: men, women and children are genuine refugees. The OLO misanthrope brigade would better expend their energies on those people who do rort the student visa system. But picking on the defenceless has always been the mark of bullies.

Personally Bronwyn, I'm inclined to suggest you don't cast your pearls before swine.
I don't think I will ever get over my amazement, that so many sons and daughters of ANZACS should be so panty wetting terrified of a handful of refugees in leaky boats.
What happened to simple good manners? Where I come from, if someone's in trouble the first -and generally only- question you hear is:
"are you right there, mate?"

*while Ludwig, Yabby et al continue to wax hysterical over a tiny percentage of boat people and actively wish them harm, is evident to any reader of OLO pages.*

Hang on, hang on Fraccy dear. No hysteria anywhere, simply
highlighting the irrational claims of the "hearts on our sleeves"
brigade.

Its only those people in front of your noses, moneyed and highly
likely economic refugees, that you mob get your knickers in a knot
over. Never mind the tens of millions in refugee camps, never
mind women and children and the fact that most claimed refugees are
men, who seemingly had no problem leaving their families, in what
we are told is highlyl likely death!

Unlike you, I dislike Australia being taken for a sucker, just
because we have some very gullible people in our community.

*All 42 people: men, women and children are genuine refugees.*

We don't know that. But they were given asylum due to the trauma
that they experienced. None of them are saying as to who actually
blew up the boat.

Re: CJ’s suck-up “Bronwyn, you have the patience of a saint… for summarising so well the reasons”
LOL
I’d characterised Bronwyn’s style as less like a saint than a punch-drunk boxer, who keeps swinging away throwing punches, few of which actually land, with little cognisance of what’s going on.

Re: CJ’s delusions “I'm not inclined to reiterate the same arguments every time some mendacious misanthrope blows his dog whistle at OLO”
ROFL
CJ reminds me of some General Gordon era character who’s on his last legs and spends his time reminiscing about great, heroic deeds he’s done in his younger days – deeds, which strangely enough, no one else can recall!


Yabby,
Agreed it was a very good coverage in the Saturday Australian, I found the testimony of the (token) rejectees who expressed their despair/fear at the prospect of being returned to Sri Lanka, particularly insightful.

Some poor souls talked of being traumatised by the resultant loss-of-face : when they departed their neighbours expected them to come into money & a big house in OZ, they had lost face (not to mention, prime marriage prospects ) by return from OZ empty-handed — brought tears to my eyes!

But then again , I guess they needn’t despair, many, many ‘refugees” have had to lodge their claim three or more times before finding someone who’d rubber stamp it.If at first you don’t succeed try, try, and try again, change your name , change your place of origin , change your family relationships , change your sex… change your carrier!

Grim & Bronwyn,
Oh how remiss of me –you two haven’t been properly introduced.
Bronwyn this is Grim.
Grim this is Bronwyn, she is very fond of you and your brothers publications –actually, she gets most of her ‘facts’ from your most famous publication.

Thanks Bronwyn for your four-post response.

"I said I UNDERSTOOD the deterrence logic. I didn't say I agreed with it."

Dear oh dear. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere! This means that the key question, that I've tried many times to have answered, remains unanswered.

That is:

How on earth do we treat asylum seekers in the manner that you desire without spurring a large, if not massive, increase in the number of arrivals, with the consequent hardening of attitudes against them, followed by the hardening of policy?

"I've made it clear all along that deterrence can't be achieved without inflicting unacceptable levels of cruelty and death upon people seeking our assistance."

Well I think it is time for me to stop trying to argue this point and just say that I vehemently disagree with this basic premise.

The opposite is true - if we facilitate a considerably larger number of arrivals, then we will be facilitating a much larger rate of mishap and death, as well as an inevitable hardening of policy against asylum seekers which will inevitably mean a lower quality of treament.

"The Rudd Government is currently embarking on a huge advertising blitz in Sri Lanka.... This is as much deterrence as I can stomach and even this leaves me cold."

Holy Moses Bronwyn! You don't even support this sort of action! I am surprised! I've got to conclude that you really do just want entirely open Australian borders and free movement to whoever wants to come here, regardless of numbers!

As for Rudd's Sri Lankan effort; at least it is something proactive. But it has multiple problems.

Firstly, it may be just as likely to make people aware of the possibility of paying boat-operators (people smugglers) to take them to Australia, where they hadn't thought of that possibility before. It may indeed worsen things. Maybe not. But the results of this initiative are very uncertain.

Secondly, it flies in the face of Rudd's policy of improving the facilitation of onshore asylum seekers by watering down the border-protection policy.

continued

Thirdly, surely the effort and money involved would be much better put into our offshore refugee program, in order to assist the most needy of refugees.

Ludwig: << There is another major question that I asked earlier that you haven't addressed - "...could you please tell me why you think our offshore system of refugee determination and acceptance is ‘inefficient and inhumane’…" >>

Bronwyn: "I’ve made this point before, but will repeat it. :) It’s inefficient in that it’s hugely expensive to be constantly transporting food and personnel via the four-hour plane trip needed to reach Christmas Island."

We have a miscommunication here. I'm talking about our offshore program. That is, as part of the UN effort, in centres on the other side of the world. Christmas Island is part of the 'onshore' debacle.

"I think we have about reached the stage we always do, Ludwig, where we will have to agree to disagree."

We've reached the point where the key question prevails....and remains unaddressed. And if it hasn't been addressed by this stage, it ain't gonna be.

That's extremely disappointing. Oh well, I gave it my best shot.

I'll set aside the comments on 'dog-whistling' and 'stalking' and say thankyou for an interesting exchange.

What did I say about bigger ships ?
I see the one taken in bt the Indonesians is significantly larger than
the fishing boats from Indonesia.
It needs to be of course because it has come from Sri Lanka.

How long before we see small freighters from the Middle East when the
word gets back about the Indonesian actions, or from China.

It just makes business sense, they could then just sail into Sydney Harbour,
just like they sailed into New York harbour or the Italian Ports.

Bazz, you are not the first to raise the issue of larger boats.

In previous discussions, I offered to charter the Queen Mary,
for it would be a safe ship with no leaks!

What our OLO tear jerker mob refuse to concede, is how confusing
to people, our present policy really is. One moment we offer
them first prize of a cushy Aussie lifestyle if they sail over
the line, next minute the Govt has their ships pulled up by
Indonesia, to prevent them sailing here. Hardly logical policy!

But if we raise these issues, we must "hate people" and similar
drivel.

The fact that the present policy is unfair, confusing, wastes
huge amounts of resources, clearly goes over their heads.

"One moment we offer them first prize of a cushy Aussie lifestyle if they sail over the line, next minute the Govt has their ships pulled up by Indonesia, to prevent them sailing here. Hardly logical policy!"

Yes Yabby, it is quite bizarre.

At least Rudd is taking a harder line, and making it known that he will take the hardest line necessary. It's almost as though he has realised his mistake in loosening border security, but is totally reluctant to admit it in any way, and will now do whatever it takes while leaving that silly policy intact.

I get the feeling that he doesn't really know what he's doing.

"...if we raise these issues, we must "hate people" and similar drivel."

Yep. If we simply raise these issues we get accused of being refugee haters, misanthropes, etc, by the true haters and intolerants, a la Morgan and Fracco.

"The fact that the present policy is unfair, confusing, wastes huge amounts of resources, clearly goes over their heads."

Absolutely.