*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.