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! (:>)