<< 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.