Does anyone know?

It seems that NOT ONE opposition member can say what their current policy is.

In all intelligence, how can they "successfully" critisise the government while at the same time providing ZERO alternative policy regarding this "specific" plight of the asylum seekers currently on the boat that lies off the Indonesian shore.

Answer? They CAN'T, at least not "successfully".

Because they have ZERO policy themselves, and have not provided ONE word regarding how they would have successfully handled this "specific" situation, they therefore have no credibility whatsoever on the subject.

It's all about POLITICS, POLITICS, POLITICS ......... and stuff the asylum seekers: That's the basis of the opposition's attacks.

As the current controversy draws to a close, the opposition will be even less popular than ever. Every time they speak out in Parliament their tactics and motives are clearly transparent on this subject, and they continually get out debated by the Prime Minister, and it's there for Australians to see. As the smoke clears, this will become even more obvious.

The Federal opposition is simply hopeless, and that's such a shame. We need strong opposition in parliament and that's exactly what we're NOT getting. Mr Menzies would be turning over in his grave.

The opposition policy is simple.

The old policies worked, they predicted a flood of boats when the laws were relaxed, and it is all coming true.

All they have to do is to beat Rudd for every boat and fumble of his government, and egg on the left wing to ensure that he can't reverse his policies.

All Rudd can do is act like a pinata, take a beating and twist in the wind, while remaining "humanely tough". He is wedged in a no win position.

SM
What's the cost benefit analysis?
The increased cost of maintaining the pacific solution.
Don't forget to add in the cost of the diplomatic consequences,
the increased military budget.
The monetary impact (inflation)and it's consequences on interest rates.
Also consider the opportunity cost of services and infrastructure etc. to Australians.

Skip the colourful metaphors and the absence of one extreme = the other extreme...think a balance or a policy linked with other foreign policy issues. But then again 'values' are vague and easy to wriggle. Fully worked through had policies require real thought not 'demonstrating that the government polices don't work' negativity BS.

Neither do I advocate a open door policy nor necessarily The LABOR govt policy. So let's be grown up stop obfuscation, trying to personalize the attack to an individual and deal with the issue with sensible debate?

Ps There is a response to your 'child like' post.

Shadow Minister: "The old policies worked"

Actually, they didn't for a while. When the old policies were put in place the number of boat people increased - and then after a few months dropped dramatically.

The best predictor for the number of boat people arriving on our shores isn't our policies. Its the amount of unrest overseas. The spike that occured just after the old policies were put in place was caused by the Iraq war. The current spike is caused by the defeat and resulting persecution Sri Lanka Tamils and the increasing violence on the Pakistan / Afghanistan border.

The opposition policy should be to expose the extreme hypocrisy of a Government trying not to offend anyone but in the end making it worse for everyone involved. Labour has been exposed for its sheer hypocrisy and the only reason the pathetic media have allowed them to get away with its crocodile tears is because John Howard is not PM any more. Mr Rudd's go soft policy has led to more deaths, more misery and a greater mess.

There's thousands upon thousands of members of OLO. So far, not one of them has been able to answer my question.

What's the question? Here's a reminder. "What is the Federal Opposition's official stated policy regarding how they would have successfully handled, from beginning to end, 'specifically' the situation of the asylum seekers currently in the boat sitting off the Indonesian shore"?

That's the purpose of this topic.

Can anybody answer the question?

On any subject, an opposition (be it Labour or Coalition) is impotent unless it can produce alternative policy. It seems that the coalition has NO policy regarding my question, and that lack of policy is to the detriment of our country. Why do they have no policy? It's simple, by having a stated policy they will be subjected to attack regarding it's contents. This will take the heat off the government, and thus lessen the political advantage that the opposition is trying to get. For the opposition it's ONLY about POLITICS, POLITICS POLITICS and stuff the asylum seekers.

So am I correct ..... is there no official opposition policy (other than criticism of the government) that relates to the 'specific' question I asked?

If I'm not correct, then what is the policy (I'm referring to the specific situation of the asylum seekers currently off Indonesia's shore)?

The Opposition policy on Assylum seekers is........
......to complain about the government's policy.....
...careful to avoid making any statements themselves, because they have no idea if following the Howard-era would make them MORE popular or LESS- because they're lazy wussies who never bother researching public mood.
Turnbull et al trying to woo the "Small l" and more liberalistic-Liberal voters by putting on the 'humane'-ish face just painted them into a corner.
Instead they assume everyone who supports it (may well be almost everyone- we have no idea) would 'read-between-the-lines' and support their criticism and ASSUME deep down they're really against boat people coming here.

Same deal with Rudd- he whipped up support of the pro-refugee electorate, but now he's worried that by going along with them he might alienate a potentially huge amount of swinging voters that demand stronger border controls.

The beauty of our system- little public input- but the public instead are a "great unknown" that lazy career politicians are afraid of at all times when it comes to popular policies.

That's correct. Political language on both sides regarding the "current" situation is informed ONLY by "let's appeal to as many people as we think we can, because that means we'll get more votes in the next election".

Humanity is a thing of the past ...... not that it ever 'really' existed within the Australian population. We're scared of 'outsiders' because we think they'll change Australia. We're scared they'll do to use what we've done to the aboriginal population.

Examinator,

When you post in a thread it is helpful to determine what the thread is about. Secondly reading a particular post before commenting on it is essential.

In this post neither of us commented on what the policy should be but only on how the issue is playing out. Likewise my comments have been on how Labor is making a complete horse's rs of it.

What is worse for Labor is that there is no obvious way out, and the coalition are not going to make it easy for them by doing offering one.

As for your comments,maybe you could enlighten us as to how with 1200+ detainees and payments to Indonesia to maintain their detention centres, how it is costing Australia any less financially and diplomatically.

Have they stood down any of the navy?
Is the cost of housing 1200 detainees more or less than the 100 odd previously?
Is the refugee issue receiving less attention internationally?
are the detainees in Indonesia being treated any better than on Nauru?

As the answer is no to all of the above, the situation is far worse now under Labor, and all the opposition need to do is make sure that it is foremost in the public's mind. With the popular perception that the boats are contrary to Australia's interests, it is only a matter of time before the issue erodes confidence in Labor.

TZ52HX: "let's appeal to as many people as we think we can, because that means we'll get more votes in the next election"

You say that like it is a bad thing, but it is what makes our democracy work. Would you prefer them to do whatever they liked, regardless of what the voters thought?

TZ52HX: "It's all about POLITICS, POLITICS, POLITICS ......... and stuff the asylum seekers: That's the basis of the opposition's attacks."

I see the job of the opposition as one of constantly probing, looking for weaknesses in government policy, and floating new alternate ideas to see how the electorate likes them. That is what the Liberals are doing. Good luck to them. Maybe they will find an idea that sticks.

By the by, they don't have much choice in the direction they push it. They can't push for a weaker immigration policy, as blind Freddy can see most of the Australian electorate doesn't want more immigrants arriving by whatever means. So they have to push for a stronger one. But while doing so they must also appear to be dealing with asylum seekers humanly. It is an impossible tightrope to walk - and thus the conflicting statements.

Still conflicting statements aren't necessarily a bad thing. They allow the Liberals to gauge the reaction to several positions at once, and then select the one that pisses off the least number of people.

Yes it's dirty, it's ugly, but it is how our democracy functions. As our democracy undeniably functions well, so I am loath to criticise it, or the how the Liberals are handing this for that matter.

"What is the Opposition's policy regarding the current asylum seekers controversy?"

My guess is the opposition does not have a firmly-held policy, but a whole bunch of individual ideas that are being floated by its stronger and more ambitious members. The overall ideal would be to be humane towards asylum seekers but in a way that maintains Australia's sovereignty. And that view would be at least tacitly held by both parties, I suspect.

In reality, it's likely that something will happen out of the blue that acts to steer public opinion in a particular direction. As they say, there's nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. The trouble is no one really knows what that idea is. Given that, it's probably the smartest thing for the Opposition (and the Government for that matter) to have a fairly loose policy that gives an overall sense of what they want to achieve but that can adroitly react to events and circumstances as they play out. It makes sense for the parties to cover their bases so that a completely unexpected turn of events does not completely wrongfoot them. Until, that is, it becomes clear what the direction on asylum seekers is, and the parties can then build on their policies.

The truth is the policy (on both sides of politics) is still evolving in the crucible of public debate on the issue.

In an attempt to answer the question logically, I thought I'd try to work out what is the government's "policy regarding the current asylum seekers controversy", so that I could have some basis against which to measure the opposition's.... err, opposition to it.

Couldn't for the life of me work it out.

Can anyone help?

I can't work out their policy either. That's why I'm asking the question.

So far, we've had NOT ONE PERSON, who can answer the question.

That's not good for the coalition. I feel that after the dust settles their lack of policy will tell against them, and Mr Rudd will ram it home time and time again. Unfortunately, the coalition has shown itself to be utterly incompetent on the matter, and just like the 'people overboard' issue of a few years ago this issue will eventually be just another nail in the coffin of an incompetent coalition. We need a strong opposition. We're not getting that.

An incompetent coalition, such as we have now, is to Australia's detriment. We need better than that. We need people who can argue policy intelligently ........ that's what we're NOT getting. They "think" that by merely opposing, without putting forth policy, they'll gain political advantage without the spotlight being put on them. Well, that tactic has FAILED MISERABLY for the past several years. Australia deserves better than that type of incompetence.

TZ52HX: "That's not good for the coalition."

Are you saying that making their position clear would be better politics? If so I suspect Noah Sweat would disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_S._Sweat

And on this particular issue, I am with Sweat. Fulfilling your desire for clarity would be a mistake at this stage of the game. They are far better off waiting to see how public attitudes are modified by this current wave of asylum seekers, and then going with the flow.

but... but... but...

>>I can't work out their policy either. That's why I'm asking the question.<<

If you can't work out the government's policy, how can you be so scathing about the opposition's opposition to it?

>>That's not good for the coalition. I feel that after the dust settles their lack of policy will tell against them, and Mr Rudd will ram it home time and time again.<<

Surely, he'd be on pretty thin ice, criticizing an opposition for a lack of policy in an area where he doesn't have one himself?

Would it not simply draw attention to his lack of policy?

The general idea of a government is to implement policies. The opposition has no ability to implement anything. Surely therefore your anger (because that's what it comes across as) should be directed against the government?

If there is an election any time soon, the opposition will be required to articulate a policy, put it in front of the electorate, and be judged accordingly. There's absolutely no reason why they should allow the government to steal any bright ideas they may have on the subject, outside those parameters.

So if you want to lead a chorus of indignation against the government's appalling handling of the present controversy, I'm right behind you. I think it has illustrated perfectly the intellectual desert that Rudd and his team inhabit.

Which will come back to bite them, not the opposition..

"What is the opposition's policy";
It is so easy to understand I don't know why most of the posters on here have not realised what it is.

They know that a new policy, or a modification of the old policy will
be needed. They are not going to finalise it till a little while before
the next election. Why ? Because they do not know what arrangements
will be made between Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia.

Reading between the lines will tell you that the government are
looking at new arrangements with those countries.
Malaysia is the key as the passengers travel to Malaysia by air and
are then smuggled into Indonesia.
Indonesian immigration must be very successful in stopping
the trade at their borders or else they would fly direct to Indonesia.
However the present Oceanic Viking affair is settled it would be
stupid to announce a policy before all the above factors are
settled by the present government.

Does that make sense to you now ?

I will have a go at answering the question.
Not hard opposition policy on everything is blame Rudd.
Oppose every thing.
And even if he mirrors past policy's of the opposition blame Rudd
And oppose it.
No matter this single policy is self destruction.
Is highlighting lack of talent ,leadership, policy's, brains, keep the self destruction going.
Head long into the brick wall, back up and charge again.
Rudd however is getting a free ride, opposition wanting victory may well have room to treat refugees better than him.

SM,
My bad, I assumed you read and remembered other relevant postings on the topic of AS.

GY's post in another topic stated that "it wasn't up to the Liberal opposition to put up a policy". Then there was a lot about resources for costings etc.

I wonder what was the point of THE opposition (any party)? so I tested it. You responded saying the Liberal's primary purpose was to demonstrate values etc.....no mention of policy etc.

In this post I understood from you, that Liberal policy was to re-implementation of the Pacific solution. If that was so then the AS would now be in A prison camp somewhere, Naru wouldn't it? and the question is therefore moot. I wanted you or someone to justify it in logical cost benefit terms given the implied obvious outcome with 260k refugees in the wind from the latest conflict.
The labor swinging in the wind isn't addressing that.

On the other hand if the Liberals don't have one, in which case the 'values etc' comment is apposite.

Labor's view is obvious too 'given they were rescued in Indonesian waters it is their problem not ours'. Yes, it's morally flawed but that's clearly it.

I don't seem to win if I spell things out I'm accused of pontificating if I don't everybody misses the point.

*As they say, there's nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. The trouble is no one really knows what that idea is*

Quite simple RobP. Shut the whole boat trade down, for once and
for all.

Take all refugees from refugee camps around the world, as we do
with most of them now.

Australians don't have a problem with taking refugees, but want
an orderly system, not a boat race based on corruption. Fair
enough.

This lot of 78 are clearly taking us for the suckers that we are.
That pisses off a lot of everyday folks and will lose any Govt
votes.

Pericles, I see absolutely no anger in TZ's posts. Maybe the anger you're seeing is your own, because you don't agree with TZ.

Actually, if one reads all of TZ's posts it's obvious he thinks both sides of the political spectrum are not performing properly.

And to be fair to TZ, on this thread no one's been able to produce a Liberal party policy about the boat in question. The question TZ asked was not about past policies, or future policies, or about general immigration or refugee policy. The question was about this one boat, and he sought to find a Liberal Party policy about a Liberal solution. No one's been able to tell us what the policy is.

I think that's because the is no policy. It seems to me TZ has made his point very well by asking that type of question.

>>Quite simple RobP. Shut the whole boat trade down, for once and for all.<<

Yabby,

I know that's a simple approach, and it may well be the best approach in the long run, but it's not as simple as that from the opposition's or government's POV. Consider the following:

1. Australia has a recent history as being a good resettlement country for asylum seekers. You can't just turn the tap off quickly without hurting some people who are already "in the pipeline". I don't imagine you'd want to be responsible for causing such an outcome for people?
2. This Government has got elected on the back of voters who are more empathetic than hard-nosed. That's why it would find it difficult to make such an emphatic U-turn in its policy.
3. There are not that many boat people as a proportion of asylum seekers to this country. On Q&A recently, it was said that about 4000 people who arrived by Qantas jumbo came here on tourist visas, asked for asylum and were granted it. So what's the difference between the two lots that warrants one lot to be vilified and the other not? One lot pays our national carrier money and the boatloads don't? What's your view of people who come here via Qantas?

Rob P said;
One lot pays our national carrier money and the boatloads don't?
What's your view of people who come here via Qantas ?

Which raises the question, why don't the boat people do the same ?
It would be a lot cheaper. The ones arriving by plane I presume have
a visa. I don't think you can get on board unless you do, otherwise
the airline has to take you back at the airlines cost.
They probably have either business or tourist visas.
So why are they asylum seekers ?
Are they saying they they are so terrorised that they go to the bank
get the cash or use their credit card to buy an airline ticket after
being to the Australian Embassy in Colombo to get a Visa, then go
to the airport, go through immigration and board the aircraft,
probably to Delhi or Kualalumpur where they board a Qantas flight to
Australia ?
They then claim to be an asylum seeker in fear of their life ?
Really ?

Rob points out the hypocrisy and disingenuous nature of those who "FOCUS" on asylum seekers who arrive "ONLY" by boat.

BY FAR, the most people who seek asylum here arrive by plane. But that's not sexy enough for the John Howard voters and his ilk, not sexy enough for bogan Labour voters who fear anything that does not fit into their version of what Aussie is. It's not sexy enough because it doesn't make the front pages, day after day, after day, after day, after day; unlike "boat people". So the complainers run ONLY with the boat people. Boat people are visible, they're disheveled, they're desperate; so the logic is to demonise them, because they're easier to demonise than the MANY times more asylum seekers who arrive by plane. These people who arrive by plane have FAR greater resources, organisation and power than the demonised boat people who have no way to organise a visa, an aeroplane journey and smooth entry into this country.
The complainers ignore the plane people and demonise the boat people because, in their tiny minds, that's where the POLITICAL POINTS LIE. It's completely disingenuous game playing. If they genuinely cared they be making sure the plane arrivals were on the front page headlines every day. Political gain is what it's all about for these leaders and organisers, and they gleefully exploit the fears of the ignorant minority, bogan masses who fear anything that does not conform to what they think "Aussie" means. It's the clever, well organised leaders leading the ignorant masses.
Thankfully, the more intelligent, aware and humane Aussies know better. We're becoming more educated on the subject every day. There's millions of decent Aussies who realise that the world needs to share in the burden of resettlement. But some just don't care, and are happy to treat people like animals, reject them and see them take their chances in an inhumane and violent world.

We have this flood of boat people because Ruddy kept his promise to the bleeding heart lefty academics, to soften the illegial's policy.

Of course we got what any half intelligent person would have expected. Not Ruddy evidently. Now he has to stop this flood, before real people start to see through his whole line of BS.

These bleeding hearts are more interested in what some third world academics think of them, than what is good for Oz & its people. What would you expect from the bottom of the garden fairies.

Now he has to bite the bullet, & do at least one thing properly. Cut this stuff off dead. There is no other choice, of action acceptable to most Ozzies.

The fact that a few illegal's get caught in the pipe line is justice.

I find some of you people so disingenueous it is hard to believe. If Howard had consigned these boat loads to Indonesian run centers, you would have been marching in your thousands. KRuddy does it, or tries to, & only a few of the most radical twits stick their heads up.

Actually, you make me sick.

TZ52HX,(Is that supposed to mean something),
When in government the current opposition had a policy that included the Christmas Island detention and assesment centre, TPVs granted to those assesed as refugees, and it worked the influx of illegal entrants stopped. They had abandoned the 'Pacific solution'. It took some time, progressively toughening the measures until the illegals decided, as they could no longer get what they wanted, it was not worth the cost and risk. So the policy worked and the boats stopped coming.

Until such time as they decide to change that policy, it will remain and as they are not in government there is little need to change.

The government now is the one to have policy that delivers the outcome they want.

By the way I think the illegals are gate crashers, bribers and cheats. Opportunists that are buying their way here and denying genuine refugees a place by pushing their way in. They take advantage of our easy going nature and take us for a soft touch, so I do not have any time for them.

Belly, I am not having a go at you but, as I recall you viewed the previous governments policies as too tough, so how do you view the present governments attempts to put the illegals into Indonesia.

Would you prefer to be held and assesed by Australians at Nauru/Christmas Island or held by Indonesians and assesed by the UNHCR?

Bazz says:

>>Rob P said;
One lot pays our national carrier money and the boatloads don't?
What's your view of people who come here via Qantas ?

Which raises the question, why don't the boat people do the same ?<<

I imagine it boils down to a question of what path is open to people. People that live in cities and that have personal connections in government etc are more likely to have access to obtaining visas and plane tickets. Poorer and less well connected people are more likely to be the opposite, so they go and find someone who can give them a ride to a better place.

>>Are they saying they they are so terrorised that they go to the bank
get the cash or use their credit card to buy an airline ticket after
being to the Australian Embassy in Colombo to get a Visa, then go
to the airport, go through immigration and board the aircraft,
probably to Delhi or Kualalumpur where they board a Qantas flight to
Australia ?
They then claim to be an asylum seeker in fear of their life ? Really?<<

To be fair, there will also be times when people who start out in a relatively good position in their societies will be susceptible to political unrest or persecution when things change. So they can be asylum seekers too. Sifting out the real from the unscrupulous claims, however, is the hard bit. It can be a tough ask for public servants in Canberra to fairly judge the degree of need in the claims that come across their desk.

There's 2 lies that the uneducated minority believe
(1) boat people "queue jump" and deny refugees a place here
(2) the so called 'pacific solution' stopped illegal entry

Can anyone here produce the name of even ONE, I repeat **ONE**, refugee who was in a so called "queue", who was denied asylum because too many boat people were coming here? And provide the full details of this person's rejection?

The so called 'pacific solution' stopped NOTHING. At the time it was instigated the push from overseas decreased because THE CONFLICTS FROM WHICH THEY WERE RUNNING FROM subsided compared to the acute nature of those conflicts BEFORE the Howard policy. The Liberal Party of course does NOT recognise this. Why? For POLITICAL PURPOSES of course. They don't want the trained monkeys who without question believe their spin to think anything else.... THEY NEED THE VOTES. And what better way to keep the party faithful voting their way than to demonise "VISIBLE" asylum seekers. Also, asylum seekers continued to arrive in their THOUSANDS every year, via plane. The disingenuous complainers about asylum seekers have difficulty with "facts".

Now, can anyone provide a rational, **straight** answer to my above two questions?

I'm waiting.

Rob, any people caught in the middle would be processed according to
the Geneva Convention. Under that, they can't pick and choose where
they are processed, or pick and choose their country of choice,
but have to accept what is offered. Fair enough.

2. The Govt got elected on the back of fear of workchoices, not the
Howard refugee policy.

3. The question is about principle, for as we see in Europe and
elsewhere, a trickle can soon turn into a flood. A Govt needs
policies based on principle, they are not organising a chook raffle.

4. People who arrive by plane, have documents, a visa and usually
a return ticket, or they won't get their tourist visa. We know
who they are. If you follow the news, many of the Tamils sailing
for Australia, have already applied and failed in Europe, so are
trying their luck with Australia. IIRC you were the one who mentioned data mining.
That can easily be used to establish that
kind of fact.

As it is, we are a soft touch. When the UNHCR check these people,
their approval rate as genuine is only about half that of the
Australians. Clearly we are more gullible. If you are a Tamil
or a Hazara, your ticket to Australia is assured, even if your
real intentions are economic, aka the cushy West.

Lets make sure that we take genuine refugees who need help, not
country shoppers who want a cushy lifestyle by screwing the system.

Those refugees are hanging out in refugee camps, waiting for our
help. Not so with boat people who pick and choose countries.

Yabby, the last election was decided on a whole raft of issues, not just one issue only.

You also made a point about people arriving by plane: There seems to be something you don't understand, either that or you're deliberately leaving it out (probably because it would neutralise your argument). Surely you're aware that thousands of people who arrive by plane are granted refugee status every year. Are you not aware of this? Surely in day and age you would be. I really can't believe that there's people in this country who don't know this. So why did you leave this out in your comment about planes?

Well as you asked I do not want those 70 odd people behind barbed wire in Indonesea.
we took them in another country's sea by request.
They came and will use the fact we put them aboard our boat to stay, if we let them.
If we do more will come, let them, if only true refugees are let in ok by me.
I think a great union leader has it right, if their color was white , if we knew they are not Muslims, much of the diatribe would die down.
hasbeen is sick of such as me, very well but You highlight bloke your xenophobia.
And I ask you to remember our long dead white Australia policy, we are growing up this rubbish about a flood ignores the evidence put before you more come, they do you know, via our air ports.
20 million refugees are looking for a home world wide do we kill them.
Rudd could help fix life in the country's they flee rather than bribe others but he has to slow them see bigotry can be infectious.

Yabby,

A few points:

>>2. The Govt got elected on the back of fear of workchoices, not the Howard refugee policy.<<

That wasn't my point. It was that if the Rudd government dramatically changes its policy, it will bleed votes from its base. That's why it won't want to stray too far from the idea of a humane policy.

>>The question is about principle, for as we see in Europe and elsewhere, a trickle can soon turn into a flood.<<

I agree that this is a serious consideration for Government.

>>IIRC you were the one who mentioned data mining. That can easily be used to establish that kind of fact.<<

I don't believe I did. However, being in the data business myself, I know what data you have in a system is only as good as the integrity with which it is entered. By definition you don't know everything about boat people. That doesn't make them non asylum seekers. Also, just because you think you know something about an economic migrant does not mean they're not also a terrorist, say. The whole emphasis on having information on people is no guarantee you'll make the right decision. (But it does make everyone feel good.)

>>Those refugees are hanging out in refugee camps, waiting for our help. Not so with boat people who pick and choose countries.<<

I'd just make the point that if I was a legitimate asylum seeker, I'd want to make sure the effort was worthwhile and I went to a good country. Otherwise it would just be a case of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Final word: achieving a fair resettlement outcome for a far-flung group of international citizens makes King Solomon's dilemma look like child's play.

*it will bleed votes from its base. That's why it won't want to stray too far from the idea of a humane policy.*

RobP, if you think about what I am suggesting, its far humane then
the present system, which creates alot of false hope, risks lives,
and is unfair, especially to the most deserving in camps, who don't
have a cent to bribe anyone. Its also a huge waste of resources,
which could be better spent on say UN running of refugee camps etc.

*I know what data you have in a system is only as good as the integrity with which it is entered.*

Yup true. But having data is better then no data and when somebody
arrives with their documents, data mining, if done well, is a huge
benefit, compared to having no data. Let me put it to you this
way. If the tax dept was not data mining, their job would be
far more difficult in catching tax cheats for instance. Its also
cost effective.

*I'd just make the point that if I was a legitimate asylum seeker, I'd want to make sure the effort was worthwhile and I went to a good country*

I would have thought that if your life was genuinely at risk, you
would be happy to be alive!

Fact is that with 15 million or so refugees in camps, those coming
to Australia will always be limited. I'd rather they were genuine
refugees, then those playing the system to their economic advantage.
People usually don't go and live in a refugee camp, unless they
have a genuine reason.

Yabby,
Perhaps that the way you see it from the wheat fields of WA given That Tuckey is from that I'm not surprised.
However in the real cities there was a big vote against the obscenity of the detainee PROGRAM and Howard's hubris.

Work choices got the great unwashed on line.
My point is it takes less than 10% to change a government. Exit polls and surveys showed there were a lot of people in the city (swing voters) who despised Howard's (? Liberal) policy on detainees.
Ruddock today is only respected by true blue. He and the now ambassador are less so elsewhere.

It clearly changed votes, enough to tip Howard's holocaust out on its own, I'm not sure but it WAS a factor.

At the time my local Lib MP won by a hairs breadth from a safe 7% the time before. The demographics meant it should have been a cake walk.
But on point how would you stop asylum seekers ? (potential Nobel prize here)

If we re instituted the pacific policy sooner or later it would back up into our poorer neighbours how do you think they will react?

TZ52HX,
The illegals that buy and bribe their way here and then gate crash our territory are commonly termed queue jumpers because they are trying to get advantage over others.

If you care to look at the website of the Dept. of Immigration and Citizenship you will see that the number of illegals that enter by air is about 1600 a year. These are returned to the point of departure ASAP and 97% are gone within 72 hours.

Any person that arrives in this country by sea or air with a valid visa is entitled to apply for protection. I have forgotten the number per year that do apply (you could find that while you are onto DIMC) but I understand their success rate is much lower than the illegal entrants that come by sea.

Belly, it makes no difference to me what colour they are or what religion they say they are. I do not want them simply because they are con artists pulling swifties. They lie and cheat and destroy their docs so we cannot verify who they claim to be.

I wonder about the Sri Lankans, are they fleeing persecution or avoiding prosecution for crimes. As part of the process perhaps we should email their photo, fingerprints, DNA and name to the Sri Lankan government to find if they have an interest to them. I recall reading about how many nazis got away after WW2.

TZ52HX

You ask about the Opposition's asylum seeker policies - I heard yesterday on RN that Charmaine Stone had made a statement - something to the effect that the Opposition's policies were to be a return to those of the Howard years - but that soon afterwards a spokesperson from her department had refuted her words, saying she'd made a mistake.

I'd say the only mistake she made, from the Opposition's point of view, was to let the cat out of the bag. I think the Opposition will definitely try and return to the Howard policies, but it'll do all it can to whip up plenty of fear and hysteria first.

Yabby

<< This lot of 78 are clearly taking us for the suckers that we are. >>

How do you know these people are not in desperate need of asylum?

<< More than 250,000 Tamil civilians have been detained since May in barbed-wire fenced internment camps, where they are subject to massive overcrowding, shortage of food and medical facilities, abductions, including the abduction of children, rape, torture, disease, and when the monsoons set in, flooding.

Amnesty International has stated that the camps are filthy, overcrowded and dangerous. Heavy rains in September caused rivers of water to cascade through the tents, forcing camp residents to wade through sewage. Monsoon rains are expected to start soon, threatening to flood the camps. One escapee told Amnesty that some women are forced to give birth in front of strangers without privacy.

All international media and non-governmental organisations have been locked out of the camps, ensuring that the suffering of the people is far from public attention. The Times newspaper in England has reported that 1400 civilians each week are dying in the camps. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has admitted to the House of Commons that the British Government was aware that the extrajudicial killing of Tamils has taken place, both inside and outside the camps. >>

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/contributors/tamils-horrific-treatment-makes-them-desperate-to-leave-20091030-ho18.html

Which 'camps' should we send these 78 asylum seekers back to, Yabby? The ones described above, which in all probability they've just escaped from? The overcrowded detention centres in Indonesia where they'll be warehoused in similarly appalling conditions for years on end? Or perhaps we could send them to one of the camps you're always on about where the 'deserving' wait in 'the queue'.

Then again, maybe we could do the only decent thing there is to do in a situation like this and that is to hear their claims for asylum.

You know, I finally worked out why we are now getting an influx of “refugees”.

It’s all to do with Halloween .They arrive on our door step suitably made up & with matching made up stories and cry: “trick or treat”.
They trick us into accepting them, and then we have to treat them for the rest of their lives.

Bronwyn
Re: “Amnesty International has stated that the camps are filthy, overcrowded and dangerous. Heavy rains in September caused rivers of water to cascade through the tents,”

With all due respect ---that description could equally apply to many of the poorer suburbs, in many of the third worlds cities. Do we go around handing out passes to everyone in that predicament , or, do we only hand passes in places that are topical/in the news!

Examinator,
Re : “If we re instituted the pacific policy sooner or later it would back up into our poorer neighbours how do you think they will react?”

Perhaps it might be enlightening(for you) to learn something about our “poor neighbours” illegal immigration polices .They are no strangers to influxes of illegals –their politicians just handle it a lot better than our politicians do.
Incidentally, I seem to recall that countries like India are being touted as the new industrial giants.
And countries like Singapore, Malaysia & Indonesia are no slouches either. It is a little antiquated /1950ish to describe them as “poor neighbours”

Examinator, even in Western Australia, we have access to the news
media! According to the AFR, a poll by the Lowy Institute showed that
76% of Australians said they were worried about asylum seekers
arriving by boat. In fact this issue won Howard the elections,
against Beazley in 2001.

*How do you know these people are not in desperate need of asylum?*

Bronwyn, you should read this morning's papers.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26289156-23109,00.html

Whatever makes you think that people on a boat are also people
who come directly from refugee camps? Any Tamil with enough
money can sail from Sri Lanka. Millions already live there.

Being Tamil would now however be a good reason to justify
leaving Sri Lanka and having a go for an Australian visa,
under the claim of fear of persecution.

Yabby,
Yeah, this mornings revelation simply verifies what I said about the illegals being liars and cheats. They sucker in the likes of Bruce Haigh, the Greens and Bronwyn and examinator. Fleeing persecution and death, be damned, they have been laying around in Indonesia for years. I'm somewhat amused by the stupidity of the 78 Sri Lankans. If they had sailed a bit further into our waters near Xmas Island before sabotaging the boat, they now would be enjoying life in our care, which is what they wanted.

Bronwyn,
While I do not have much time for Rudd, I hope he is successful in doing a deal with Indonesia because if the illegals cannot get here they will stop coming. Same as Howard eventually did by not giving them what they want.

At least 42 have died trying to get here on Rudds encouragement, so putting a stop to the boats will save lives. He should admit it was a mistake to entice them by 'permanent residency'. Sometimes one has to be tough to save people from themselves. Parenting teaches that.

TZ52HX

"There's 2 lies that the uneducated minority believe
(1) boat people "queue jump" and deny refugees a place here
(2) the so called 'pacific solution' stopped illegal entry"

"Can anyone here produce the name of even ONE, I repeat **ONE**, refugee who was in a so called "queue", who was denied asylum because too many boat people were coming here?"

Shows a complete ignorance of how the system works. There is a quota, (about 13000p.a.) and there are probably hundreds of thousands of refugees that meet the criteria. Visas will be allocated to a certain number and whether they come in on boats or otherwise the No is the same. No one is rejected, just not given a visa.

That the majority of boat people have been resident in Indonesia for up to 5 years would indicate that their decision to depart to Aus in mass is due to the perception that acceptance is now easier. The reason they did not before was that they faced incarceration and rejection. This information indicates that the relaxation of the regulations was the single greatest motivating factor, and that the "push" factor had little to do with it.

There is absolutely no doubt that the pacific solution was the major reason why influx of boats stopped.

If Rudd just stopped trying to BS the electorate and said, the pacific solution was wrong, and we accept that we will get 10s of thousands of refugees on boats, then we would believe him.

It seems to me that there is no satisfactory solution, except to look
the problem straight in the eye and find a way to send them back home.

Countries with a refugee source problem should have a UN administed
resettlement protocol. The procedure would be something like this.

In each country the UN would have register of returnees.
A UNHCR team would make regular visits to the returnees to check that
they are not being mistreated in any way.

If problems are found the UN would call the government to account and
publicise their mistreatment.

A start could be made with those that have been in camps for years.
I doubt if their home country would even remember them.
Very quickly it would become apparent if the scheme was working or not.

Some will not like this but do they have a better solution ?
No one has come up with any other better solution.

*Bronwyn
Re: “Amnesty International has stated that the camps are filthy, overcrowded and dangerous. Heavy rains in September caused rivers of water to cascade through the tents,”*

Bronwyn, I am sure that you are very caring, very sweet, with a huge
sense of empathy. But I really think that you don't have the foggiest,
when it comes to what is going on in the third world.

The BBC is presently showing a series called "Hot Cities" This
weekend its been about Dhaka. There are literally millions of
people, living in even worse conditions, with nowhere to go.

Many are fleeing rising floodwaters and things are getting worse
every year.

When you remove all the fog and haze of this discussion, what it
comes down to is that even if it wished, Australia cannot solve
the world's problems and trashing Australia to make ourselves
feel better, solves nothing. Sadly that is the reality of it,
much as we would wish to deny it.

Horus

<< With all due respect ---that description could equally apply to many of the poorer suburbs, in many of the third worlds cities. >>

With all due respect to yourself, even though in this case it's hardly well earned, the current situation in Sri Lanka cannot just be likened to any poor suburb of any third world city, dire though of course many such suburbs certainly are.

You're obviously not aware that the situation in question is being described in terms of 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide'. Over a quarter of a million Tamils have been rounded up and herded off their land, during which time an estimated 20 000 were killed. Hundreds are dying every week in the camps they've been herded into, and not all are dying from disease and starvation. They're being murdered both in and outside the camps. They've been told their land is riddled with landmines and that there are plans to install Sinhala populations in former Tamil areas.

No Horus, I'll show you more respect when you stop talking through your hat and start researching the lives of the people you're so quick to renounce as cheats and impostors.

Banjo

<< Fleeing persecution and death, be damned, they have been laying around in Indonesia for years. >>

Again, if you'd bothered to check your facts, you'd know that Tamils have faced persecution in Sri Lanka for many years. This morning's news is no real surprise to many. These people it seems, along with thousands of others, have been registered years ago by the UNHCR as genuine refugees, and very understandably are sick of being warehoused in a squalid, overcrowded and forgotten limbo world created directly as a result of John Howard's and Kevin Rudd's 'push back and warehouse' policies. They know full well by now that no country is going to come along and take them in. They've been left in the unenviable position of people-smugglers being their only option.

I guarantee you'd take the same course if in their shoes, though of course that sort of empathy is probably beyond you.

Banjo, I'm referring to people who enter "legally" via plane and claim asylum status. I thought I made that clear .... there's MANY thousands of them every year, and MANY thousands of them SUCCESSFULLY gain asylum here; a FAR greater number than boat people.

This is what I've been saying all along. People, such as you, DEMONISE boat people, but IGNORE plane people. In your post you accused these Sri Lankan boat people of "avoiding prosecution for crimes" and compared them to "nazis". Take a look at your language. It's the language of illogical paranoia. People like you TARGET boat people because they're easy targets. Your comments are cruel and inhumane.

ANY boat person found to be not genuine (historically it's been a tiny, tiny, tiny minority), should be sent back to their country of origin ..... I doubt ANYONE SERIOUSLY DENIES THAT SHOULD BE THE CASE. But the whingers and complainers aren't happy with just that. The leaders want to DEMONISE boat people for political advantage, and their followers want to DEMONISE boat people out of fear.

Australia is changing, and the bigots are becoming fewer in number every year, thank God.

Shadow minister, that quota is NOT an inflexible quota. Get your facts right. You have been unable to name even ONE person, who is currently listed in a queue, who has been denied asylum in Australia specifically because of boat people. People like you just LOVE to feed the great lie, "boat people queue jump and deny refugees a place here" .... that's a LIE, LIE, LIE. Anyone who is not to the right of Attila The Hun knows the so called "Pacific Solution" did NOT stop boat people. I've already explained why there was a lull in boat people (but NOT plane people)at the time....... but I guess one can't retrain any trained monkey who falls for the political spin surrounding the demonisation of boat people.

No matter what is true or not about all the boat-people asylum seekers and the countries they come from, the fact still remains that it is way too dangerous for small boats with too many people aboard to travel by sea to Australia.

No matter how dire their situation is, shouldn't we be doing all we can to dissuade these people from arriving here that way? How many boats with lots of people aboard sink without a trace that we never hear about?

The racists and non-racists of this country can argue with each other until they are blue in the face, but that won't change what is essentially a suicide mission for many of these boat people.
They should be stopped by whatever ways we can.

Suzzieonline;
These boats are normally going to sea fishing and the crew are the fishermen.
If they knew the boat was unseaworthy, they would not take it to sea
no matter how much they were paid.

These are the same boats you see the Navy chasing up for illegal
fishing. They are probably told by the smugglers they will only get
a few months in a Darwin holiday camp.
The larger ones are probably used for inter island trade.
Boats like these are at sea all around the Indonesian archipelago.
Some do get into trouble, but the design has been developed over
many generations. Sure they don't have much more equipment than a GPS
a compass and a radio, but you are talking about experienced seamen.

Suze, you've betrayed yourself via your "language".

It all sounded pretty good - - - - - - - till you dropped that last sentence on us. This is something that some people do - - - they don't want "outsiders" here at all, so they use the pretense of concern for the boat peoples' welfare as a cloak for their opposition to boat people. Eventually their "language" betrays them, and often it takes just a sentence or two.

"They should be stopped by whatever ways we can" says Suze. That's easy to say, sitting comfortably behind your computer, belly full of lovely food, happy home life (hopefully), in no constant fear of being raped, assaulted, shot, knifed, bombed, persecuted with no viable future for your children, yourself or your spouse. "Whatever ways we can"? Suze, if you really cared, you'd be writing about ways to improve the speed of resettlement, ways to solve homeland conflicts, helping the thousands of children who live like animals (but at least some animals have a brighter future than some of these kids) etc etc etc. But no, they should be STOPPED by WHATEVER WAY WE CAN. Suze, I hope you enjoy your belly full of food, the education you've received, the nice house you live in.

What would you do if you were in an asylum seeker's shoes Suze? EXACTLY THE SAME I bet. And so would MOST people.

To expect people to sit passively for 5, 10, 15 years (it happens all the time) and subjugate themselves this way,(just as long as they are "there" and not "here") shows an appalling inhumanity by anyone who is happy to subject people to this type of life.The world needs to share the load and provide safe asylum for people in danger or those without a future.

But the world largely just doesn't care. Just like some of the people here. It's terribly sad.

TZ52HX,
"Many thousands of them" Your source? Keep in mind once they are approved by UN and we agree they are transported here by plane.
If you are talking about over stayers of visas I think you'll find they are from elsewhere.

Mind you one could argue that NZ is overly represented here and those voracious tourists consume and defile our valuable resources etc.

Suzie,
Good point
I often bang on about how we should spend our money more productively and constructively by helping the refugees to want to stay home.

In truth they would prefer to if they had adequate positive reason.

Suppose for some reason our coastal regions became unlivable suddenly
we had to migrate would you or any of us really do that lightly?
Suppose we could make more money better lifestyle in the US would you move? probably not! Take the Mong community in the states many simply went to sleep never to awake, they willed themselves to death they fretted that much for their home, poverty and all.
I wonder why some people think that the same reasoning doesn't apply to refugees? It does.

I suggest that a comparative little would keep them home in the environment they prefer. And let them develop the way they are happy with. What is so fab about our way of life? suicide, depression, addictions et al all threatening to overwhelm our society's social services' charity et sec.
Think about downsizers and sea changers.All are seeking happiness yet left alone these people have little or none of the above. Why?

As much as some posters here carry on about all the 'nasty racists' who don't want these poor, desperate boat people here in Australia, I wonder do they 'care' as much about all the would be refugees stuck in terrible situations all over the world?

We can't be seen to be allowing these boat people to stay in Australia just because they have have the money and the means to come here by boat? How fair is that to all the others?

I believe it has been shown again and again that it is a dangerous journey- people have died trying to float here. That is not a racist comment, merely a fact.

Bronwyn,
I am intrigued by this portion of your post:
“You're obviously not aware that the situation in question is being described in terms of 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide'. Over a quarter of a million Tamils have been rounded up and herded off their land, during which time an estimated 20 000 were killed. Hundreds are dying every week in the camps they've been herded into, and not all are dying from disease and starvation. They're being murdered both in and outside the camps. They've been told their land is riddled with landmines and that there are plans to install Sinhala populations in former Tamil area”

You have clearly accepted lock stock & barrel the Tamil account of events, but you should know there are at least two sides to any conflict.

Mindful as you no doubt are that Singhalese sympathetic sources say :Tamils are terrorizing us.
And Tamil sympathetic sources say: Singhalese are terrorizing us.
And being a fair minded person as you no doubt are, I am curious as to how you were able to determine which account was correct.

I mean, was it a case of infatuation at first sight ; as soon as you saw an Tamil asylum seeker, you were smitten and thereafter read all you could to understand your love. Or, was it the case that you read the stories first and then sought out someone who matched the characters in the story, who just happened to be…Tamil.

And that leads us to an even more intriguing question:
As Andrew Bartlett has testified in an earlier thread. Some of the persons granted asylum have been Singhalese (fleeing Tamils!).
What if the first asylum seeking you laid eyes on had been…Singhalese!
Would you now be writing :The Tamils have terrorized the Singhalese ,stolen their land and cattle & tried to impose their rule?

PS:
“You're obviously not aware [Horus] … Hundreds are dying every week in the camps”

You’re obviously not aware [Bronwyn] that 3000 people A DAY die from malaria, in Africa,in or out of camps

Suzeonline,
you are quite right, those that support the illegals do not have any feelings for the genuine refugees that are in camps in various countries. They are ignored. You can decide for yourself why this is so.

Bronwyn, you are also right in that I do not have any empathy regarding those that cheat and deceive others to get here. Look at the 78 Tamils, they deliberately sabotarged their boat so they would get picked up and since then they have tried everthing they can to get what they want. They tried intimidation and now refuse to disembark. They implied that they were fresh from Sri Lanka, when they have been safely in Indonesia for some years. This exposes the lie that they were fleeing persecution and death on the boat.

No, my feelings and sympathy go to those that are genuine.

TZ52HX,
You talk a lot of rot and do not have one factual item to back up what you claim.

You say there are thousands of asylum seekers that arrive by air, well show us the figures. I will give you a tip, the numbers would be on the DIAC website and while you are there tell us the number that are successful. I think you will find it is much lower than the illegals that come by boat. If you don't understand why then I will tell you later.

In the meantime tell me why you hate the refugees from camps and support the charlotans that falsely claim to be refugees. My preference for giving help is reverse to yours.

I guess it was only a matter of time till someone here tried to use the race card to back up their arguments. Congrats to suzeonline. Congrats for falsely implying that others here have called her and others "nasty racists" on this thread. I went back and read many of the posts here and so far, unless I missed a post or two, I have not discovered anyone who called people racist, or made an implication.

It seems suzeonline is the first person to bring up the subject of racism. Congratulations to her, but she can do better than play the race card.

*shows an appalling inhumanity by anyone who is happy to subject people to this type of life.The world needs to share the load and provide safe asylum for people in danger or those without a future.*

So TZ, as you accuse us of inhumanity, perhaps you had better suggest
what your solution is, in real terms.How many millions should
Australia take?

I remind you that the global population keeps
increasing at 80 million a year, most of them people in danger,
without a future, so even if we take 20 million, that equates
to around 90 days with of extra human breeding. We could take
40 million, that would still only solve the problem for 180 days.

Next the question of Australian sustainability. This is a hot and
dry continent, with clapped out soils and a fragile environment.
The more people we load it with, the more that suffers and becomes
unsustainable.

But lay out your concrete figures, so we know what your values are,
so we know where you are coming from in terms of philosophy.

Yabby

<< Bronwyn, I am sure that you are very caring, very sweet, with a huge sense of empathy. But I really think that you don't have the foggiest, when it comes to what is going on in the third world. >>

Yabby, stop trying to paint me as some helplessly emotional female ditsy. I'll guarantee I'm no more ignorant than you are when it comes to understanding the third world. Yes, I do have a strong sense of empathy, but my views are also entirely pragmatic. What sort of future security will Australia have, in a region where the power balance is shifting away from Western dominance, if we put up the barricades and turn our backs on our neighbours in need? We have to take our fair share of the region's refugees. Our current intake is not enough under the circumstances. I know 'Australia cannot solve the world's problems', but it can at least help out with those on its doorstep.

Horus

<< You have clearly accepted lock stock & barrel the Tamil account of events, but you should know there are at least two sides to any conflict. >>

Yes, I do know that Horus, and I also know they rarely BOTH have right on their side, despite the fervent belief on both sides that they do. I don't profess to know the whole story as the history of this civil war is a long and complex one and I've no doubt as you say there is right and wrong on both sides. But I've read credible accounts from neutral observers who've had long associations with Sri Lanka and who have a good understanding of the current situation. Despite what you say, it is the Tamils who are currently the ones being persecuted in large numbers. I'm sure if I was reading regular accounts of the Sinhalese being rounded up and killed, I'd have sympathy for their plight too, but at the moment that is clearly not the case.

Thank you Bronwyn for injecting some mature balance into this discussion. Thank you for remaining calm despite the crass baiting sent your way from people who choose to not debate logically. Thank you.

The Opposition's policy on asylm seekers is simply to blow the dog-whistle as loudly and often as possible in order to deflect attention from their woeful disarray and incompetence.

Let me express my appreciation to TZ52HX, RobP, Smithy456 and others who demonstrate that there are many of us who are immune to the Opposition dog-whistle - and of course to Bronwyn, whose participation in the discussion is a model of maturity and patience in the face of some quite puerile attempts at provocation.

Speaking of which, Yabby - you keep on saying the solution to the problem of asylum seekers arriving by boat is to simply "shut down" the organisers. How exactly would that be achieved, given that it's a worldwide phenomenon?

Here we are on the horns of a dilemma.
We would like to help all who are looking for asylum, or even just looking for a better life.
Yet suggesting a let them all in policy worries everyone.
Why ? Because we know that it is impractical. We may not put actual reasons why it is not possible,
but we know that it cannot be done.

Let me put a scenario to you.
It has become increasingly firm that peak oil occurred in July 2008.
Oil production is very unlikely to increase other than for short periods ever again.
Demand is increasing in China and India and will soon absorb the reduction in demand that has occurred in western countries.
The debt incurred by the US and European countries is such that that assistance to population shifts is very unlikely.
Depletion of energy from oil has already started and will put increasing strains on world economies as they try to adapt.

In Australia’s case we will face a 50% decline in oil availability before 2020.
Our government has adopted a policy of population increase to 35
million that is nothing short of madness in view of our current water
and soil conditions.
We should adopt a policy to reduce our population to a level that
can be maintained by the land.
Think of us as sheep, what is the carrying capability of the paddock ?

The earth has a problem, leave the people where the problems exist and let them sort it out for themselves.
If it is internal wars, let them fight it out, or argue it out.
If it is starvation, water supplies etc let them adapt and reduce
their populations until their land can support them.
Mass migration is nothing more than problem shifting.

For everyone we take in, they will be replaced by another wanting to
shift here.
It is no solution to move people, they have to solve their problems where they are.
If they do not sort out their problems, mother nature will do it for them and it won’t be pretty.

Banjo

<< Look at the 78 Tamils, they deliberately sabotarged their boat so they would get picked up and since then they have tried everthing they can to get what they want. >>

I haven't read anything about deliberate sabotage, but I may have missed it. Perhaps you could quote your source.

<< This exposes the lie that they were fleeing persecution and death on the boat. >>

No it doesn't at all. It seems these asylum seekers, or many of them anyway, have had their claims for asylum recognised by UNHCR four or five years ago. They're genuine refugees who were proven at the time to have fled in fear of persecution and would patently be in danger if they returned now. I don't blame them for refusing to go back to Indonesia. They've been warehoused there in hellhole conditions for many long years already. If they go back to waiting there, they know full well they'll never leave. Besides, there are plausible reports of them suffering beatings and brutality whilst detained in Indonesia.

Over a quarter of these asylum seekers have family in Australia. It makes sense for them to seek resettlement where they’ll receive family support.

Most in the Opposition, while critical of Rudd’s handling of the situation, stop well short of demonising the asylum seekers themselves. Even Rightwing unions, traditionally nationalistic in outlook, are speaking up in support of fair treatment for them. Your views, Banjo, place you squarely in the lunatic fringe.

Smithy and CJ

Thanks for the reassuring words. Yes, it can become tedious going over the same old arguments with the same old closed minds, but it’s always wonderfully reaffirming to see other voices of reason and compassion shining through the murky maze. :)

Yabby,

>>RobP, if you think about what I am suggesting, its far humane then
the present system, which creates alot of false hope, risks lives,
and is unfair, especially to the most deserving in camps, who don't
have a cent to bribe anyone.<<

Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that asylum seekers are really economic migrants in disguise. BTW, the people who are really promoting this idea are saying more about themselves than the people they're talking about. Anyway, what about those boat people that are truly trying to flee either persecution or squalor? Are you willing to admit that a proportion of them are genuine asylum seekers? Are you categorically saying that none of them are genuine?

>>I would have thought that if your life was genuinely at risk, you
would be happy to be alive!<<

Again, that presupposes the asylum seekers' life wasn't in danger or that he had already got the best possible outcome for himself. That's a pretty hard assessment to make from here. I'd broadly give you a 50:50 chance of being correct in an assessment you made of any particular asylum seeker. If you are a libertarian, you must concede that the people making the decision to chance their arm by boat are in the best position to do so?

* if we put up the barricades and turn our backs on our neighbours in need? We have to take our fair share of the region's refugees. Our current intake is not enough under the circumstances*

I've seen nobody here suggest that we put up the barricades, but
most Australians want an orderly intake, which does not include
boat races based on smuggling dodgy claimants.

As to our fare share, the number we take is open for debate. Clearly
we take far more then Japan and most other countries in our region.

If you spend some time in SE Asia, you will soon notice that
Australians are more commonly seen as "dumb suckers", then as
inhumane. Have you noticed how many asylum seekers head for
Singapore?

Even the limp left, given their claims of care about the environment,
will have to put a figure on how many poor and impoverished people
we in Australia should take, before the barricades go up, for even
you concede that an unlimited intake is not an option.

The 78 are indeed taking Australia for a sucker. They are trying
to jump the UNHCR queue, made longer by other boat people. News
reports mentioned holes drilled into their boat. They were in
Indonesian waters, mobile phones in hand, ringing the Australian
Maritime Authority (yup Sri Lankans on a leaky boat would of course
know which number in Australia to ring). Hey pronto, along comes
the Aussie boat, now they refuse to get off and play the political
pressure card, knowing full well that you compassionate hearts will
play it their way. Whoever thought up this one, deserves a prize
for ingenuity!

I'll comment on the rest, when I have more posts

Bazz

<< We would like to help all who are looking for asylum, or even just looking for a better life. Yet suggesting a let them all in policy worries everyone. >>

I doubt anyone here is arguing to 'let them all in'. Last year we took in around 6000 refugees. We can easily afford to take in four or five times that number. That's nowhere near letting them all in, but it would get us closer to shouldering our fair share.

<< It has become increasingly firm that peak oil occurred in July 2008. >>

I understand the peak oil argument and agree with it entirely. It's peak oil that's driving much of the displacement of people within developing countries. The reason Iraq and Afghanistan have become so unsafe to live in is largely down to the West's desperation to shore up oil supplies. The West has a long and sorry history of exploiting poorer nations. It's continuing unabated under the bullying mantra of 'free' trade, which is stripping poorer governments of their rights to foster local industry and provide sustainable livelihoods for their people.

<< Our government has adopted a policy of population increase to 35 million that is nothing short of madness in view of our current water and soil conditions. >>

I totally agree. Skilled migration, which BTW has people continuously jumping the 'queue' - but nobody seems to worry about that unfairness, needs to be wound back to near zero levels. The Baby Bonus and all such encouragement to reproduce should be abolished and real measures taken to conserve our land and water. I understand sustainability issues but, like the Greens who were arguing their importance long before anyone else in Australia, I do consider it possible to simultaneously satisfy both environmental and humanitarian concerns.

Smithy456: "Congrats for falsely implying that others here have called her and others "nasty racists" on this thread."

That is an accurate observation, but it misses the bigger picture. The anti asylum brigade here has tried to daemonise the asylum seekers. For example:

Yabby: "This lot of 78 are clearly taking us for the suckers that we are."

Bazz: "They then claim to be an asylum seeker in fear of their life ? Really ?"

Belly: "The illegals that buy and bribe their way here and then gate crash ..."

If history is any guide, these statements are just rubbish. The vast majority boat people who arrived in the Howard era were found to be resourceful people running for their lives just as you or I would in the same situation. We know this because Howard's administration gave most of them asylum.

I know it makes it so much easier to send there people back to their rat holes if you imagine them out to be no better than rats - but personally I think that is the cowards way out. If you can't afford feed for the horse and decide to send it to the knackers, at least have the good grace to refrain from blaming the horse.

CJ Morgan: "The Opposition's policy on asylum seekers is simply to blow the dog-whistle as loudly and often as possible"

Yeah, they are doing that. And at the same time they are demanding we treat the asylum seekers more humanely. TZ52HX got it right when he started this thead - they don't have a consistent position. But then unlike the government they don't have to. Unlike TZ52HX I don't see a problem with it, and besides I think staking out a firm position at this stage would be bad politics.

Yabby, I used to enjoy reading your posts in the early days. But as CJ's example shows they are now more often than not just unsubstantiated hearsay served up to justify your favoured idealogical position. You could, and in fact did, do much better.

Bronwyn

Contrary to what you might believe, Australian women are already facing considerable disincentives to have children and that is why they delay fertility right up until ages where the risks of failing to conceive or experiencing high health risks for themselves and their progeny are very real. But don't doubt my word just go to the many government reports saying just that.

The fertility of Australian women is well below what is necessary to maintain its own population and has been so for many years, which is why government was finally concerned enough to offer a weak incentive (while continuing to flood the country with migrants).

Maintaining record immigration numbers year in year out is the problem and that is the policy that should be questioned. Australian women are at fault for un sustainable population numbers? You are kidding aren't you?

TZ52HX

The quota of refugees is set at 13000. Whilst not absolutely set in stone, it does include those that come in via boats and air, and while it may go to say 13100, it is certainly not going to 14000. So those that jump the queue certainly displace someone that apply through the proper channels.

As there are no published lists of visa approvals or rejections for any reason, your requirement of proof is infantile. I call on you to show by any means that what I have said is incorrect. I have looked and cannot find any.

There have been about the same No of boat people per week recently as there have been per year in 2007, compared to a world wide refugee increase of 12%. Given that most of the asylum seekers were actually resident in Indonesia in 2007 your bleating that the increase in boats has nothing to do with the relaxation of the regulations looks a little feeble.

Again I call on you to provide more than rhetoric and capital letters.

Many people drown going to US for money also. Money is toxic drug, even more addictive than sugar. Shame to see people drown for love of money. We should ensure the world's wealth is spread around more, notice many countries embarrased because their people come here for money.

maybe we should have a global minimum wage of $15.00. Initially for multi-nationals then flow through all communities when the benefits starts to take hold.

As energy depletion sets in we will not have the funds to be running
ships, aircraft and Christmas Island and all the other expenses that
this whole immigration system, legal or illegal entails.
If we just rely on the existing population our numbers will decrease
slowly back to a sustainable level.

Natural gas may alleviate the problem to some extent, but not if we
continue to tie up supplies with long term contracts with China, Europe and Nth America.

When we reach around a 10% shortage of fuel we can expect unemployment
to be reaching much higher levels than we now have.
More of us will have to be involved in food production as food costs
increase and fertiliser becomes more expensive.
If we had 20 years to adapt we could avoid this, but we ignored the
advise and the last thing we need is an extra 150,000 mouths a year
to feed.
Seven million people each in Sydney and Melbourne, it just doesn't
bare thinking about.
The financial crash that occurred after the peak in oil prices in
July 2008 was the writing on the wall. Ignore it at your peril.

Is it sensible to keep on injecting more people into this problem ?
Anyway, it is not like we will have a choice, immigration will stop
for financial and energy reasons, no matter what anyone says.

Sydney is already awful. the Harbour is very nice. Full stop. the rest is a dump. Gangs running wild, dogs sniffing you, Nazi train police, bouncers over reacting, camera on your every move, filth everywhere. Ugly buildings. No culture. Same shops as anywhere else, same movies as everywhere else. The big things that maybe interesting for the wealthy only. Dump.

We should be talking about the Opposition's immigration policy. We've gone off the topic.

The GOP policy depends on what the government policy is then they'll go inthe opposite direction. They have NO policy of their own.

socratease

Well like they keep saying they are in opposition and when you are in opposition you do not need a policy. What is the use of a policy if you do nothing with it. We cannot vote on it. They measure public opinion on their reaction or government action and come up wih policy at election.

*But as CJ's example shows they are now more often than not just unsubstantiated hearsay*

Err not so Rstuart, for this stuff eventually turns up in the
news once again. CJ accused me of all sorts of things over the
I-pod story. Hey presto, it raised its head again, for me this
time to hang on to the link and prove him wrong yet once again.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/ipod-ban-for-christmas-island-detainees-20091027-hhkv.html

The good news is that I read alot of news sources, the bad news is
that I do it for my own benefit, not to try and convince our local
ostriches, for their heads are far too deeply in the sand, to notice
anything. So I don't store links on everything.

*Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that asylum seekers are really economic migrants in disguise*

No RobP,not so. My argument is that the genuine asylum seekers
that we know of, are in refugee camps. The boat trade creates
an opportunity for any Tamil or Hazara, even if they don't fear
persecution, to hop on a boat and claim asylum here. Canberra
would be battling to tell the difference,as you admit.

Sure there would be genuine asylum seekers on boats, sure there
are plenty who can play the system for other reasons, to assure
a cushy lifestyle in the West. Take them from refugee camps and
you know why they are there, its also more cost effective.

Look at the figures difference between UNHCR and Canberra, when
it comes to judging asylum claims. It is huge and they both
can't be right. My money is on Australians being more gullible,
for in the real world its extremely difficult to prove, if a Tamil
is here for the money, or for a genuine claim. If he's a good
story teller, he's got his visa.

No Socratease, we are not off topic.
This the very point. The governments immigration policy is madness.
We should stop all immigration.

Missus is a bit over the top. Sydney is a good place to live and I
would not swap it for anywhere else. I don't travel in peak hours much
but anywhere in the world transport is crowded in peak hour.

As I said in another thread we should send them all back, with whats
coming down the track we just cannot cope with more.
Let them sort out their own problems and leave us to ours.

Bazz

<< The earth has a problem, leave the people where the problems exist and let them sort it out for themselves. >>

Yes, we could do that, but eventually the problems would intrude on us too. Besides, our comfortable lifestyle is dependent on the continued exploitation of resources and labour from developing nations. We need them, as much as they need us.

Research is now proving that the greater the disparity in a society's wealth, the more the whole of that society is beset by health and social problems. The same is true of global society. We will not be able to maintain our extravagant lifestyle, while countries around us suffer deep poverty and political unrest. We might be able to for a few years, but not for any length of time.

Besides, it's the West that's responsible for the climate change about to wreak havoc on so many undeserving nations around the world. We have a moral obligation to assist those who have already and will continue to suffer in order for us to live in comfort.

Quite apart from ethical considerations and purely in the name of pragmatic self-interest, we can't allow states around us to fail, because one way or the other they’ll take us down with them.

Yabby

<< I've seen nobody here suggest that we put up the barricades >>

Patrolling our borders, turning back boats, excising large sections of our coastline and mandatorily detaining all boat arrivals in offshore detention, all of which you advocate, are - figuratively speaking - ‘putting up the barricades’.

<< Look at the figures difference between UNHCR and Canberra, when it comes to judging asylum claims. It is huge and they both can't be right. >>

Time to put up on this one, Yabby. Let’s see some sources.

Bronwyn,
Re---“ But I've read credible accounts from neutral observers who've had long associations with Sri Lanka and who have a good understanding of the current situation.”
Talking of "show us your sources" how about you show us your sources?

I have been searching high and low on the internet for “NeutralHQ.com.au” with no result.

Re---“I'm sure if I was reading regular accounts of the Singhales being rounded up and killed, I'd have sympathy for their plight too, but at the moment that is clearly not the case”
You have sympathy with the Tamils because you’ve been “reading regular accounts” of their plight.So, perhaps it has more to do with your selection of reading material.—than the state of affairs in Sril Lanka ? How might your demeanour change if you started reading Steven King ?

Smithy 456,
Bronwyn has as much “balance” as the leaning tower of pizza –too many toppings, I suspect.

Yabby: << CJ accused me of all sorts of things over the I-pod story >>

No I didn't - I just asked you for a source for it. Thanks for finally providing one. And please don't try and claim that you haven't been claiming that asylum seekers are really economic immigrants in disguise - that was the point of your iPod claim, after all.

Now how about telling us how you think that we should go about "shutting down" the "people smugglers"?

Smithy456 < "Congrats for falsely implying that others here have called her and others "nasty racists" on this thread."

You obviously missed the loving post by TZ52HX thinly suggesting my post implied racism? Or do you have a problem reading between the lines?
I brought up what a few others are only thinly disguising in their posts. See rstuart's post for examples if you don't believe me.

I really don't care what country they come from, all asylum seekers should apply through the united nations or the correct channels so that it is a level playing field where our Government can decide which refugees should come first as a matter of priority.

It should not be determined by who gets here first by rickety boat.
There are plenty of really desperate people in African countries who don't have the luxury of being close enough to Australia to come here by boat.

Is anyone saying that people living further away than are able to come here by boat should be less deserving of our sanctuary than those living in closer countries

*No I didn't - I just asked you for a source for it*

You accused me of dishonesty. I might be blunt, I might not be
PC, I might have a warped sense of humour, but I'm not dishonest.
As I said, the story was true. Nope, I don't keep links for
everything.

*Now how about telling us how you think that we should go about "shutting down" the "people smugglers"?*

Simple, refuse to take any asylum seekers by boat, take them
all from refugee camps. In cooperation with the UNHCR, establish
a refugee camp in the region, where there is a demand for one.
Australia, in combination with Japan and other wealthier countries,
to finance it.

*don't try and claim that you haven't been claiming that asylum seekers are really economic immigrants in disguise*

CJ, I have always claimed the same thing. Some are and some are
not. It is virtually impossible to prove which is which. OTOH
those people coming from refugee camps, are hardly likely to be
rich economic migrants, hoping and waiting in a refugee camp.

Bronwyn, the discrepancy in figures between Canberra dnd the UNHCR,
was widely debated in the press, last time this issue blew up,
in the Howard years. No, I never kept a link, in case some years
later, some ditzy dreamer might want it.

The barricades are hardly up, if we are accepting 13000 refugees
a year. Australians in the majority, simply want an orderly
system, not a frigging free for all based on corruption.

Yabby: << Simple, refuse to take any asylum seekers by boat, take them all from refugee camps. >>

Do you mean that Australia should withdraw from the 1951 Convention, then?

<< In cooperation with the UNHCR, establish a refugee camp in the region, where there is a demand for one. >>

Do you mean like the existing ones in Indonesia where asylum seekers reportedly languish for 5 years and are subject to abuse by the guards?

<< I have always claimed the same thing. Some are and some are
not. >>

It seems to me that you focus exclusively on those you allege are economic immigrants. In fact, I can't recall you ever acknowledging that the vast majority of 'boat people' are found to be bona fide refugees - as opposed to economic immigrants.

Little wonder that I think you're dishonest.

Suzeonline I went back and read that post by TZ, and re-read it and re-read it. In no way at all did he say or imply you were racist. Racism is when one has a prejudice based on another person's skin colour. TZ suggested nothing of the sort.

Suzeonline you were the first person within this topic to bring up the subject of racism. Yes, you. The charming term you wrote "nasty racists" came from your pen, and no one else. Please Suzeonline keep racism out of this topic. It's got nothing to do with the topic, and by playing the "nasty racists" card you only reflect badly on yourself.

Smithy456, you might need to read your dictionary- the definition of racism is
"The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

It doesn't mention skin colour at all. You have no idea what my skin colour is either. So please don't assume you know my beliefs.

You are very naive if you believe that the outcry by many Australians about the asylum seekers has nothing to do with racism. It does.

Just because I dared to bring racism up in this debate, it doesn't prove anything at all about my own beliefs.

The opposition cannot think of a policy regarding the current asylum seeker controversy because they just can't find any answers, like the rest of us.

In todays news we now have 11 people apparently drowned from a boat near the Cocos Islands.
How many more people have to die before our Government can come up with an effective policy to stop people trying to come by boat and putting their lives in danger?

Bazz, how do you feel about this recent disaster after your earlier comments about these boats?

Thanks smithy, but I think when anyone tries to bring racism up in a topic like this it's best to ignore them. From my reading of the posts here it's pretty clear that those who oppose boat people are NOT doing it because of peoples' complexions.

Ok now, someone from an earlier page (I've forgotten who) suggested that I was wrong when I said many more asylum seekers arrive by plane rather than by boat. That's a problem with discussions like this, some people base their "opinions" on how they feel rather than the actual facts.

Here's just a little quick link (there's a million of similar ones, but this'll do) that shows asylum seekers arriving by plane FAR outnumber asylum seekers arriving by leaky boat. For example between Sept. 2008 and April 2009 just over 600 boat people were intercepted on their way to here, while 2,887 "plane people" claimed asylum during the same period.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/822830/plane-people-eclipse-illegal-boat-arrivals

"Plane" people have almost always outnumbered "leaky boat" people.

YET, "ONLY" boat people are demonised.

Why?

They're soft, easy targets.

The complainers would do EXACTLY the same thing if they were in the same situation, and if they were faced with up to 15 years of languishing in virtual concentration camps (some of them at least ...... the conditions can be horrific), with no "queue", no clear way out, no future...... only despair. Yes, those complainers should look into their hearts and ask "would I let "my" family languish in despair with no way out or would I take desperate action?"

"ALL" genuine refugees and asylum seekers need the world's help .... ALL of them. Whether they are in camps in their own country, in camps in foreign countries, in planes or on leaky boats.

They are human beings for God's sake. The world needs to show more humanity.

Umm suzeonline now we're making progress. You've finally admitted that you brought up racism. You seem to strangely think that you have been called a racist. Nobody has implied you are racist, not one person. However, you have directly accused someone of implying you are a "nasty racist"; those are two words that only you used. It's obvious you made that false charge in an effort to lessen the credibility of TZ. Why you felt the need to do it, I don't know. Personally I think he deserves an apology from you, despite the fact that he seems quite happy to ignore you and your rather nasty "nasty racist" comment.

By the way, prejudice against someone because of their skin colour is racism, even though judging by your last post you seem to not think so. The definition I gave at the top of this page was just a small part of the broad definition of racism, just like the definition you gave in your last post was just a small part of the broad definition of racism. And I repeat, you have not been called a racist by anyone here. It has been pointed out to you by both TZ and I that you have introduced the topic of racism into this thread; that does not mean anyone is accusing you of racism. I say this with all due respect, but maybe you just need to pay a little bit more attention to your reading skills.

You also wrote "You are very naive if you believe that the outcry by many Australians about the asylum seekers has nothing to do with racism". Well suzeonline, of course racism comes into it with a minority of people. When I wrote "it's got nothing to do with the topic" I was referring to the "topic", duh. What is the topic? It's the opposition's policy, and I believe both the opposition and the government do not base their refugee policies on racism.

For the benefit of those who have faith in our -stringent processing procedures- ala CJ Morgan [2 November 2009 8:34:31 PM - below]

“It seems to me that you focus exclusively on those you allege are economic immigrants. In fact, I can't recall you ever acknowledging that the vast majority of 'boat people' are found to be bona fide refugees - as opposed to economic immigrants.”

Here’s an interesting piece from a parallel thread posted by Franklin

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9648#154510

Suzieonline wrote;

Bazz, how do you feel about this recent disaster after your earlier
comments about these boats?

Doesn't change anything about the boats.
I guess you would be happy if they had boarded the Titanic ?
There is always a risk in going to sea. This applies whether you are
on a large ship or a small sailing dinghy.
However what I said stands, these boats are used in their thousands
around Indonesia, it is the crews responsibility to ensure it is
seaworthy. Perhaps there will be a marine inquest and we may learn
something about its history.

I had a very interesting conversation with an acedemic collegue last night on the issue, and one of the things we discussed was what could be done in the best interest of the country if politics were put aside.

The Tamils are generally better educated, have knowledge of English, and industrious, (I personally have been involved in sponsoring a Tamil engineer and his family to work for me and was wildly pleased with the results), on top of which they obviously have funds and the wherewithal to provide for themselves.

Compared to the Sudanese who are illiterate with no knowledge of english and require vast assistance to get on their feet.

Therefore to save the country vast amounts of money and diplomatic ignomany, simply fill the 13 000 quota with Tamils from Sirilanka, charge them the $15 000 "processing fee" that they were paying the smugglers.

In one fell swoop, we would meet our "humanitarian" obligations, save millions on border protection, and provide the economy with cheap educated labour.

There is one small snag, and that is that asylum is meant to be granted to those that really need it, and the whole point was to assess the applicants on a needs basis rather than who can afford the boat fee.

At this point after seeing how labor is getting creamed at the polls, I can say I told you so. And with 11 dead boat people as a result of the relaxed regulations, things are only going to get worse.

Yabby: "Err not so Rstuart, for this stuff eventually turns up in the news once again. CJ accused me of all sorts of things over the I-pod story."

That must have been a different thread, Yabby - one I have not been following. There has been no mention of iPods in this one. Now that you have brought it up though, it sounds like another blast on the dog whistle. There seems to be no argument about giving them the $50 per week, and from my point of view they are far better off spending it on iPods that what the article said it was actually intended for - lollies and cigarettes.

I was actually referring to your statement "Shut the whole boat trade down, for once and for all." suzeonline makes the same throw away appeal: "No matter how dire their situation is, shouldn't we be doing all we can to dissuade these people from arriving here [by boat]?"

We have spent, what, 5 or so years trying to do just that. So far no one from either side of politics has managed to pull it off. We don't let them onto the mainland, we lock them up for years, we split up the families and send them insane, we have paid literally billions to other countries to take them, we force them back at gun point, we appeal to other countries to not let the leave, their boats sink and they drown - yet still they come. What, additional steps do you think we should take? Blow the boats out of the water, perhaps?

As far as I can tell, there is little difference between Labor and the old Liberal policy. We still round them up and process them offshore. I hope we do that more humanely than in the past, but it is difficult to tell. About the only real change I see is we now do it on our own territory rather than paying a billion for it to be done by others. It is a small step, but it does appeal to my Scottish heritage.

Shadow Minister: "as a result of the relaxed regulations"

You have said this in several different ways in this thread. It would be helpful (well to me anyway) if you explained the ways the regulations have been relaxed - and in particular the changes that have caused the increased numbers of boat people to arrive. Citations would be handy. Since these are changes to the law and you are a lawyer, they shouldn't be hard for you to dig up.

Bronwyn.
You must have missed the media reports that the 78 Sri Lankans sabotaged their boat. As i recall, it was mentioned a number of times.I am somewhat amused because they did not wait until they were closer to Christmas Island before they undertook the sabotage. H.ad they sailed a bit more they now would be in our loving caare, which is what they were after.

It will be interesting to see if the latest deaths deter more Sri Lankans from coming by boat directly from Sri Lanka. Our government should advertise the dangers now widely in Sri Lanka.

It now appears the silly change of policy by the present government has unfortunately lead to about 20 more deaths adding to the 42 that they are already responsible for.

TZ,
After listening to a replay of the interview of Malcolm Turnbull by Alan Jones yesterday, I would agree with you that the Coalition does NOT have any policy at present. Turnbull did not have any answers for some hard questions and is an absolute disgrace. They could have, at least, had a broad policy to stop the boats coming, on humanatarian grounds. Like not opposing the ETS, another opportunity squandered by Turnbull. It was his stupidity that makes everyone now change from incandesent light bulbs, to save the world!

The only way to stop the boats coming is to make it not worth the cost or risk to the illegals by denying them access to the mainland, assesment strictly in line with UNHCR and no permanent residency.

By the way, illegal boat arrivals for 2001 were 5516. After the introduction of the 'Pacific solution', in 2002 the illegal arrivals dropped to just 1. You could be right about the number of protection applications by legal arrivals, but you did not include how many were successful. I do not recall exactly but I doubt it was more than 50%, but you can find that out if you are interested.

rstuart,

Unless you are being particularily dense, completely ignorant of what is happenning in the world, or deliberately obtuse, the policy ard regulation changes are as follows:

Last year, the Government scrapped temporary protection visas and ended the "Pacific Solution" of sending asylum seekers to Nauru and Papua New Guniea.

On top of that it scrapped the requirement for manditory detention or deportation of asylum seekers or visa overstayers already in Australia.

The warnings were issued early this year that this was being used as s sales pitch by the people smugglers, evidently to great effect.

Have a look at this and tell us how nothing has changed, and that the co incidental massive increase in boats is a "surprise".

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24099363-5013871,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/19/2546801.htm
http://www.asrc.org.au/act_now/changes-to-mandatory-detention.html
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1119637/Government-s-asylum-policy--a-shambles-

Sorry,

I thought I had changed "Scrapped mandatory detention" to "modified ..." but it slipped through.

Additional commentry:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/labor-punished-in-polls-for-fumbling-on-asylum-seekers-20091103-hu0w.html

This has important consequences for the government as it goes into negotiations with the coalition on ETS.

It was holding the big stick of double dissolution over the coalition's head, but that threat is beginning to look a little toothless now.

Rudd desperately needs resolution, as this is looking like their version of "work choices".

TZ52HX

<< From my reading of the posts here it's pretty clear that those who oppose boat people are NOT doing it because of peoples' complexions.
>>

Very decent of you to say so, TZ52HX, but I'm afraid the asylum-seeker debate is undeniably fuelled by both racial and religious bigotry. As stated by Malcolm Fraser this morning, these asylum-seekers wouldn't be left stranded on the high seas if they'd been white Zimbabweans fleeing Mugabe's brutality. I don't like bringing up the race card anymore than you do, and I know it's likely to get ugly for me as a result, but I'm not going to pander to the redneck egos we're dealing with here.

I live in a predominantly white middle class area where my views on asylum seekers are very much in the minority. Currently, the whole community is pulling out all stops to prevent a family of white South Africans from being deported, for not meeting all the business criteria in their attempt to buy resettlement here. It did the same thing a few years back for a white South American family. The thrust of the argument is always the same - these are just the sort of people we want in Australia. As opposed, of course, to the sort we don't want.

In the six years I've lived in the rural-residential area I'm in now, there have been five white South African or Zimbabwean families amongst my neighbours. I don't begrudge them their good fortune, but I can't help wondering at the unfairness of it all. If you're white and have sufficient wealth, you can buy your way to resettlement in this country with ease, but if you're escaping from war torn Islamic countries you'll find it virtually impossible to gain protection here. And if you do somehow wangle it, you'll very likely have to fight discrimination the whole time you're here.

If you're still in any doubt, have a look at Shadow Minister's last post. He knows the sort of people Australians want. Sri Lankan Tamils apparently are worthy of our protection, but the Sudanese aren't.

Shadow Minister: "Unless you are being particularily dense, completely ignorant of what is happenning in the world, or deliberately obtuse"

Sadly Shadow all of the above have probably been true at times. And above and beyond that, I am just plain sceptical of anything I can't see for myself. I am just a stubborn old man, I guess. Thanks for taking to time to humour me.

Shadow Minister: "Have a look at this and tell us how nothing has changed,"

According to this one http://www.asrc.org.au/act_now/changes-to-mandatory-detention.html , the changes are:

- We don't put them on Nauru any more. We put them on excised territories like Christmas Island instead. I am no lawyer but I thought the reason for putting them on Nauru was to ensure our legal system and its remedies were not available to the asylum seekers. I also thought "excised territories" achieved the same thing.

- After initial processing, they are officially allowed to roam freely around the excised territory. This is of course different from Nauru, where they unofficially allowed to roam freely during the daytime.

- Access to funded migration advice, and an Ombudsman - but not our legal system.

These don't look like a major changes to me. The major effect is it should keep the money in Australia. To be fair to Labor, that is an achievement in itself.

Shadow Minister: "On top of that it scrapped the requirement for manditory detention or deportation of asylum seekers"

It appears the practical outcome of scrapping those two things is instead of holding the asylum seekers on Nauru, they are now held in an excised territory. To me the words you quote look like Labor spin championing a small change.

Shadow Minister: "The warnings were issued early this year that this was being used as s sales pitch by the people smugglers, evidently to great effect."

Perhaps they were. I am not sure what the Australian government can do about foreign criminals telling lies, except perhaps wait for the reality to strike home. The reality is regardless of the spin, not much has changed.

Yabby,

>>No RobP,not so. My argument is that the genuine asylum seekers that we know of, are in refugee camps.<<

That was a nice duck and weave to the comment of mine you were responding to. So, you would be OK with taking asylum seekers from refugee camps? At least that's a trade-off that I think is worthy of consideration. But, until such an initiative happens, I don't begrudge asylum seekers for trying to get here by other means.

All,

The thing about people coming here by boat is that they self-select in a number of ways. Firstly, they take a risk which shows they're having a go (this attitude was lauded John Elliot of all people on the Q&A program) and secondly, the fact they get through the Migration Department's screening process as well as the defence shield put up by many Australians means that the refugees who settle here are the most resourceful and hardy types of migrants.

I think the difference between "boat people" and "plane refugees" in the minds of Australians is most definitely psychological. There's an old mentality that the enemy will attack by sea, when in fact refugees are coming here in much greater numbers via less obvious means than by boat. Added to that, the economy is prospering so the economic sponsors of the policy are happy (you can tell because of the silence from that quarter to the debate). The downside is that the carrying capacity of Australia is being stretched.

Overall, what seems to be happening is that Australia is taking a "quota" of people from different parts of the world, but not too many from any one part, just like Noah's Ark, dare I say it. But if you are in the business of bringing in refugees, that is the best way to do it IMO.

Bronwyn,
You know I, and others, could bring up many examples of the opposite to what you claim to have experienced.

Like the english couple that were here for 26 years as 'illegals'(overstayers). They participated in the community and were small retailers and were well thought of but dispite community suport they were deported.

An illegal Lebanese who was convicted of drug dealing, won a right to stay because he had fathered a child while here. It was ruled that the child would be denied a father.

More recently an illegal Islander family was to be deported and the community and the school the daughter attended petitioned the Minister to allow the family to stay.

I refrain from drawing these instances up because I am sure the Department/Minister and the courts come across all sorts of cases where they have to rule on.

I think TZ is right in ruling out racism as a factor in many not wanting the illegal boat people to be here. Any analisis will reveal that they are liars and cheats who are trying to buy and bribe their way here.E.G. If they were persecuted, how come the got travel docs to leave or did they purchasse false papers? Why destroy their papers before getting to Aus?

The reason there is no objection to those that arrive here legally and then apply for asylum is that they are following legal process and are honest. They have docs that allow us to make fair and reasonable assesment of their application.

Bronwyn,

I'd agree with your last post more if it included two extra categories.

Those who are driven by blind Xenophobic fear and Opportunism.

The saddest sub groups of the above are those who refuse to inform them selves and are happy to wrap themselves in their own prejudices/bigotry as some sort of self aggrandizing regal robe.

In my neighbourhood we have a few recent imports who came here to "escape the colour conversion of the 60% importation of non natives of their homeland" but "they're not bigots".(guess where they're from?).
another family of imports isn't primarily colour religious bigoted they simply don't like everyone who isn't at awe with THEIR ancestry.

Perhaps the most pernicious are those who simply seek political advantage by comments like....
"This has important consequences for the government as it goes into negotiations with the coalition on ETS.

It was holding the big stick of double dissolution over the coalition's head, but that threat is beginning to look a little toothless now."
In context how hard is to see a variation of the oldie but goody "Yellow (Asian) Peril scare campaign" being used to justify undemocratic manipulation.

NB I don't care which party does this it is equally contemptible.

From this one can reasonably extrapolate that the conservative mentality still harbour racist (elitist) views.

and what low regard they have for the public i.e. it's bigoted,selfish and stupid (they'll choose stupid over bigoted and selfish) Lowest denominated.

Proving yet again the difference between rats and major political parties, there are some things rats just won't do.

'Never mind higher ideals or long-term thinking or policy' we have values (sic).I've yet to here a comprehensive alternative policy which is still the issue (question).

As I said earlier somewhere, if I was Turnbull I wouldn't try and form
a new policy now as the situation is very fluid.
Who knows how all this will settle out.
I think this is one of those time to do nothing.

Most of our discussions here fall into the same category.

Has anyone else noticed that this site has become slow ?

Turnbull doesn't need a policy - the dog-whistle is working very well for him right now.

And so the demonisation of boat people continues on this topic. Isn't that right "BANJO" dear boy!

They are called cheats, bribers and liars with the repeated innuendo that they are NOT fleeing any persecution. It's NEVER said that only a miniscule percentage fit that stereotype, or 20% or 50% or 60% of them. No siree, the implication is that they ALL are suspicious, they ALL should be rejected and they ALL want to deprive us of our security and our good life.

Under the Coalition government, "almost" ALL of the boat people detainees, after lengthy investigation, were found to be REAL asylum seekers and were granted entry into Australia and given asylum. I think the figure has been historically around 95% or more, year after year after year.

Still the myths continue, perpetrated by a minority of Australians.

Every decade we have well over a million migrants settle here. Out of this large figure there's been several thousand boat people granted asylum. The scare mongers would have you believe we're being FLOODED by boat people and Australia's in danger from them.

The entire world needs to share the load of resettlement of displaced persons. It needed to do this a hundred years ago, it needs to do it now, and it will need to do it in a hundred years time.

What's happened to our humanity? Did we ever possess it in the first place? Did our ancestors and early settlers come here only after seeking permission from the aboriginal people? Some of us are scared witless that the boat people are trying to do to us what we did to the aboriginal people. Sad.

Australia needs to know if the Coalition has the answers. It seems they have NO answers, and all they can do is snipe at the government with the aim of trying to gain political advantage. That's ALL they're interested in. They have ZERO policy. What are their answers? Heck, even THEY don't know. They don't "really" give a stuff about people risking their lives (UNLESS they think there's a political advantage for them). Sad.

Horus

<< Talking of "show us your sources" how about you show us your sources? I have been searching high and low on the internet for “NeutralHQ.com.au” with no result. >>

Very funny.

I've accessed many sources, but some writers I consider particularly credible on this issue are internationally recognised expert on refugee law, James Hathaway; author of 'Conflict in Sri Lanka' and 'Stalemate: Refugees in Asia', David Feith and OLO contributor and former Sri Lankan diplomat, Bruce Haigh.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/contributors/tamils-horrific-treatment-makes-them-desperate-to-leave-20091030-ho18.html

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2714668.htm

Shadow Minister

<< On top of that it scrapped the requirement for manditory detention or deportation of asylum seekers or visa overstayers already in Australia. >>

Wrong, the Rudd Government is still forcibly deporting asylum seekers.

In fact, not a lot has changed, apart from the abolishing of Temporary Protection Visas, the 45-day rule and the requirement to repay detention debt. Yes, the Pacific Solution has been abandoned, but the practice of offshore detention and paying poor nations to do our dirty work remains firmly in place.

Banjo

<< Why destroy their papers before getting to Aus? >>

As stated in Article 27 of the Refugee Convention, it's not a requirement that asylum seekers carry papers.

There's often no UNHCR office or Australian embassy for them to go to, and even when there is, things like roadblocks, curfews and travel restrictions frequently prevent access. Purely expressing a desire or intention to leave, let alone visiting a UNHCR office, can expose asylum seekers to enormous risk. The majority who leave without papers do so for safety reasons, not to deceive.

CJ

<< Turnbull doesn't need a policy - the dog-whistle is working very well for him right now. >>

Exactly. As Malcolm Fraser reminded us this morning, Turnbull's actions are a sorry contrast to those of the Whitlam Opposition in the seventies. When the Fraser Government granted asylum to boatloads of Vietnamese, Whitlam steadfastly refused to whip up hysteria and score political capital as he well could have. It was his bi-partisan statesmanship that was largely instrumental in the public's acceptance of the decision. How different it is today.

Robp, says: “The thing about people coming here by boat is that they self-select in a number of ways. Firstly, they take a risk which shows they're having a go (this attitude was lauded John Elliot of all people on the Q&A program) and secondly, the fact they get through the Migration Department's screening process as well as the defence shield put up by many Australians means that the refugees who settle here are the most resourceful and hardy types of migrants”

Maybe we should also encourage DRUG PUSHES & DRUG BARRONS too, aye!
They show resourcefulness, they’re risk takes & entrepreneurial
And, they can earn revenue, big revenue for the nation ---what better citizens could you want?

*We have spent, what, 5 or so years trying to do just that. So far no one from either side of politics has managed to pull it off.*

Nonsense Rstuart. We never stopped offering first prize, to those
who sail to our mainland. The whole point of the i-pod story, was
just how cushy people get it here,compared to the third world.
Our 50 bucks a week for piss up money, is a huge amount in the third
world. When you offer, first prizes like that, of course people
will risk their lives. Mexicans rush to the US, Africans rush to
Europe, economic migrants who want more money!

The way to solve it is to offer no first prize for people who sail
here in boats. Take all regugees from refugee camps. If Australia
announced, that only our direct neighbours would be granted asylum
directly, (that cuts out all this country hopping), the problem
would be solved.

The UN Convention is out of date and should be updated. If the
rest of the world won't get off its arse, Australia can go it
alone, for it is a Convention, so basically voluntary compliance
and is not mandatory by international law, for there is no
international court that enforces it.

If the law is an ass, its time to change the law.

The point is, huge numbers of economic migrants around the world
are stealing the places of genuine asylum seekers, by conning
the system.

Horus, you beat me to it, Franklin's figures on the other thread
were quite enlightening. UNHCR appovals in 2001 in Indonesia,
around 20%, ours in the 90s. What a gullible mob we are, but then
it is tough to sort out, due to the convention being out of date.

Never mind throwing your papers away, the Convention never even
considered that people would do that, so its fine according to
Bronwyn. Suckers we are.

Bronwyn,
Come on, you know that if a person flys from Pakistan or Sri Lanka to say Malaysia they need at least a passport and possibly a visa. Even to live in those places they require some form of idenity. Once there they then make their way to the South coast of Indonesia.

You also know that because a person is intending to apply for asylum does not give that person right of entry to any country. They must comply with the countries laws. It is illegal to attempt to enter Australia without a valid visa.

The sole reason they destroy their docs, before arriving here is to make it difficult for us to check on their story and prevent them being sent back, because their own country will not take them back without verification regarding their citizenship.

TZ,
Get real, These people pay smugglers thousands of dollars. Qantas has return fares to Singapore for $916 and Delhi for $1215, add a couple thousand for expenses while here, or stay with relos. Then why would anyone pay a smuggler far, far more. Simply because they know that if they come legally and apply for asylum here they will not meet the criteria and be sent back. Or if they apply to UNHCR in Indonesia they likely be rejected or have to wait 9 years or so.

So yes they are ALL under suspicion and trying to pull a swifty. They will do anything to get their to come here.

Like those that hijacked the Tampa, the 78 on the 'Oceanic Viking' have vitrually hijacked it. There are laws covering the situations where persons will not obey a lawfull request of the vessels master. Now more intimidation, by threatening self harm, and claiming ill treatment by the crew.

What is really needed here is to fly in a contingent of AFP officers and forcably remove them to Indonesian soil. Then proceed with charges against them, Making sure they are informed that they will NEVER get to Aus.

Yabby: "We never stopped offering first prize, to those who sail to our mainland."

If that was so I would expect to see asylum seekers from all nearby poor countries. Instead we only see them coming from the current war torn trouble spots - Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Weird eh? By some coincidence they are the only countries that share your materialistic view of life - the ones prepared to sacrifice home, family and friends for an iPod, are also the ones from countries in the throws of a civil war.

Its also pretty difficult to believe that the previous Liberal government, who took the strongest anti asylum seeker stand of any government in my memory was suckered not once, but over and over again by people who had no resources, no help and can't even speak the lingo.

Here is another odd thing: I am actually on your side. The way I see it the world is running low on essential resources like water and oil, and so it about to become a very unpleasant place for some. The odds are we are going to be swamped with asylum seekers. They will be driven here having only two choices - die trying to get into Australia, or just die. And I think our only sane course of action will be to turn them away.

That's bad enough. But to see you try and justify this position by blaming the victims, the people fleeing for their lives from war and starvation is just over the top. Get a grip man. If you are going to make harsh decisions, at least have the decency to take responsibility for them.

*If that was so I would expect to see asylum seekers from all nearby poor countries. Instead we only see them coming from the current war torn trouble spots - Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Weird eh? *

Not so Rstuart, for to come to Austrlia and win first prize, you
need some serious money by third world standards. To get around
the UN Convention rules, you still also need an excuse. Most Tamils
went to India (130'000) according to the press. Most Afghanis went
to Pakistan. Some Pakistanis did claim to be Afghans, but were caught by the system.

How many people in Burma or North Korea have serious money? Not
too many, unlike Afghanistan or Sri Lanka. So we tend to see those
people with serious money and an excuse, turn up as boat people,
because it is worth their risk to do so. We are offering them
first prize.

Afghans and Sri Lankans already here, would be egging them on.
As Bronwyn has confirmed, many have relatives here.

*the ones prepared to sacrifice home, family and friends for an iPod,*

Rstuart, migrating is no big deal to many. Its also more then an
I-pod. Many Europeans migrate here, not for the money, but for
the climate, lifestyle, whatever. They don't need the I-pods.

But money indeed is the driver for the huge migration that we see
from Africa and Mexico. People are not all the same, some want
wealth at any cost, some don't.

People are not silly, they don't risk their money for no reason
either. Thais, Malaysians etc, would be fully aware that they
would not be accepted under the UN Convention, so they would not
take the risk.

That does not mean that Australia is not seen as a desirable
destination. When I applied in the 70s, I was told that there
was virtually no chance, as they had over 1 million applications
a year. I accepted the decision of the Govt, in having an
orderly system. That is what we now need for asylum seekers.

Banjo

<< It is illegal to attempt to enter Australia without a valid visa. >>

It is NOT illegal to seek asylum in Australia or any other country, valid visa or no valid visa. You are morally and legally wrong to use the term 'illegal' in the context of asylum seekers.

<< The sole reason they destroy their docs, before arriving here is to make it difficult for us to check on their story and prevent them being sent back ... >>

It's a small minority who do this and of those who do, the reason is as likely to be about safety as it is anything else.

<< Like those that hijacked the Tampa ... >>

The Tampa was NOT highjacked.

<< ... the 78 on the 'Oceanic Viking' have vitrually hijacked it. >>

This tragic saga hasn't yet played out fully and already you're rewriting the story to suit your own hate-filled agenda. These are proven refugees who desperately need protection. They've already waited five long and brutal years in squalid and overcrowded holding-camps in Indonesia and who knows what length of suffering they endured in Sri Lanka prior to their escape. They have every right to refuse to disembark at Indonesia and would sooner die than do so. Their plight is unmistakably tragic and you talk of 'virtual highjacking'. You really are the lowest of the low. The only reason I'm engaging with you is to refute the outright lies you're peddling here. I haven't the slightest interest in your miserable bigotry, but I do care about maintaining some sense of integrity in this debate, particularly for readers who haven't closed their minds like you have.

<< What is really needed here is to fly in a contingent of AFP officers and forcably remove them to Indonesian soil. >>

The world is watching this boat. If Australian police or defence personnel are deployed in a repeat of the Tampa, world opinion will rain down so hard our reputation will never recover. Rudd knows this and fortunately will stop short of following his predecessor's miserable and cowardly precedent.

And so the demonisation of "only" boat people continues here.

Over 95% of boat people have historically been found to be genuine, and granted asylum here.

But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good "opinion".

It's interesting that nobody has supplied to us a "flood" of actual names and case histories of asylum seekers who have been granted asylum, that prove they are frauds. What we've been supplied with on this topic is lots of "opinion". Hey, we can't let Australia continue to be FLOODED with potential terrorists on leaky boats ...... isn't that right folks........ but hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good "opinion".

Inhumane "opinion", that makes me ashamed of a minority of Australians.

Asylum seekers need help form ALL the world. They need resettlement, both back to their homelands when appropriate and to new destinations when appropriate. If passage to safety anywhere in the world was readily available (in other words all countries faced up to their responsibilities)then people would have ZERO need to risk their lives on boats, and/or to risk their lives traversing hostile borders and dangerous locations.

But gee whiz if you believe "some" people here, a refugee * *VULUNTARILY* * becomes a refugee, then abandons his/her nice home for the sole purpose of fraudulently obtaining a superior, cushy, easy life in Australia.

"Some" people here, with full bellies, a future and secure homes have simply lost their basic humanity and all accurate perspective on this issue.

Memo to Bronwyn & Co:

You are skirting the issue ( what’s new!).

The asylum seekers are in most cases illegal immigrants. The refugee convention does not overrule immigration laws, it seeks rather to provide an short-term exemption from penalties until their illegality is resolved i.e. either accepted or sent packing.

To quote from Frank Brennan ( who ,knowing you predilection for refugee junkies’ would probably been seen as something akin to a pope; sacred & infallible )

“The convention envisages that many refugees in flight will have to enter another country seeking protection WITHOUT HAVING COMPLIED WITH IMMIGRATION LAWS of the country where they are seeking asylum.It prohibits the contacting states from imposing penalties ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR ILLEGAL ENTRY OR PRESENCE, on refugees who ,coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threaten , enter or are present in their territory without authorisation , provided they present themselves without delay to the authorises and show good cause FOR THEIR ILLEGAL ENTRY OR PRESENCE’”

[Tampering With Asylum –Frank Brennan p 19]

Horus,

>>Maybe we should also encourage DRUG PUSHES & DRUG BARRONS too, aye!<<

Use your all-seeing eye, Horus, and tell me what's stopping them coming on planes. How do you know we haven't already got quite a few drug pushers already in our country? Even ones that were born here, aye!

Come on you guys (Yabby, Horus), you're going to have to argue better than that.

Yabby: "for to come to Austrlia and win first prize, you need some serious money by third world standards."

I am not sure why I am replying, as you clearly so focused on justifying your "the immigrants are the evil ones, not us" meme that mere facts are unlikely to discourage you.

Nonetheless, there are holes in your argument that you can sail a ship though so I may as well point them out. You said the these people are coming to Australia for purely economic reasons. You now also say they are comparatively well off, and so were presumably living a good life compared to their neighbours. Nonetheless you claim they are willing to risk death to endure a fair amount of hardship to become a small fish in a big pond, rather than the big fish in a small pond they once were. This is so at odds with normal human behaviour it doesn't require further comment.

Yabby: "Afghans and Sri Lankans already here, would be egging them on."

The asylum people from the previous waves also have people here. The Iraqis, and the Vietnamese to name a few. The Vietnamese in particular are moderately well off. By your logic they should still be risking their lives in unseaworthy boats to get there. Yet no, when the unrest in their local area settled down, so did they.

You are obviously making this up as you go along. That might be work if you put some thought into it, but you seemingly posting the first thought that comes into your head that justifies your position. The inconsistencies with the situation on the ground are so glaringly obvious it is having the reverse effect from what you presumably intend.

Thus my lament above about the standard of your posts. What have you done with the old Yabby, the one who said entertaining things and made think? I what him back.

rstuart

The major difference is that with the scrapping of the temporary protection visa, which limited the duration and mobility of the asylum seeker, and the use of mandatory detention only when the person is deemed to be a security risk.

This means that if the person has no documentation, and cannot be confirmed as a security risk the authorities are forced to release him on Australian territory with a residence visa.

There is nothing stopping him hopping on a ferry to the mainland and applying for housing etc, even before his asylum status is verified. This means that his acceptance is virtually guaranteed after a short detention period, which was certainly not the case previously.

The boat people are not completely gullible, are informed of the implications as it affects their life savings, so their perceptions are not solely based on the smuggler's sales pitch. However, the smuggler's are certainly going to make sure that they have the positive information at their finger tips. They have been waiting patiently for years for the right opportunity, and Labor has given it to them.

Labor is directly responsible for the surge in boats, and thus indirectly responsible for the 12 lives lost when tthe boat sank a couple of days ago.

The drubbing that Labor got in the polls indicates that I am not the only one that thinks this way. If this crisis continues for much longer there may not be a Labor gov in 2011.

My prediction for this is that with the collapse of the "Indonesian solution" (which was a thinly disguised pacific solution) with the increasing unpopularity of this in Indonesia, and facing voter rebellion, Rudd is going to be forced to roll back most of these changes by the middle of next year.

The cynic in me says that the coalition will then delay this as much as possible to allow labor to continue to haemorrhage up to the next elections.

So far I have been right on the money.

And so the demonisation of asylum seekers continues.

Shadow Minister, who has referred to 10s of thousands of refugees on boats, has been everything *BUT* right on the money. It's typical, uneducated scare mongering based on anti Labour sentiment. In not *ONE* post from SM on this topic has he shown one ounce of compassion or sympathy or humanity towards asylum seekers. EVERY post he's written has been slanted specifically for POLITICAL spin; and his motives for his posts are clear and transparent (he's betrayed by his own language). What he cares about, as shown by his written language, is that those deaths give him the opportunity to try to blame people for the deaths. Political spin AT IT'S WORST! Twice he's blamed Labour for the deaths, and twice he's not written even one tiny word of sympathy or regret over those deaths..... his motivation is clear.

Some people JUST DON'T CARE.

And so the demonisation and myths and opinions continue.

Some sections of our community have simply lost their humanity.

Luckily they're a minority. Those latest polls place Coalition support BELOW Labour support, and Mr Rudd remains far and away the preferred leader compared to the opposition leader's extremely low rating. So the majority of Aussies in the poll still prefer Labour. That's not my "opinion" ..... that's FACT.

Yabby

<< When I applied in the 70s ... >>

How telling. So you've been granted the privilege of resettlement in this country, and now you're going out of your way to deny the same right to others, and others BTW who are no doubt much needier than you ever were. Aren't you struck by the hypocrisy of your position?

<< So we tend to see those people with serious money ... >>

Some might have money. A few might have a lot of money. And BTW, having money doesn't negate ones right to seek asylum if needed. The vast majority of asylum seekers who arrive by boat however do not have 'serious' money. Most sell all they own to scrape together enough to pay for one escape passage.

<< Afghans and Sri Lankans already here, would be egging them on. As Bronwyn has confirmed, many have relatives here. >>

Refugees are entitled to live with their families too you know, or is that another privilege you think should be denied them? Many spend years separated from their spouses, parents or children. Australia’s Temporary Protection Visas kept families split for years on end. They were the reason so many women and children, desperate to be reunited with their husbands and fathers, were on board the ill-fated SIEV X. Having a relative already settled in the country in which you're seeking asylum is a huge advantage, both for the asylum seeker and for the adoptive country.

<< But money indeed is the driver for the huge migration that we see from Africa and Mexico. >>

Thousands of refugees in Africa are driven from their homes every year as a result of famine and war. To argue they leave their homes for no other reason than money is both crass and ignorant.

Mexico has been exploited by its all-powerful neighbour for so long and so ruthlessly that its government is no longer able to provide jobs for its citizens. They cross the border to survive, Yabby.

TBC

Bronwyn
You are as usual far more reasoned and reflect more of reality than the "hard liners" '*I'M* all right crowd' (subtext and I FEEL that any other takers will lessen MY comfort [sic] therefore MY opinion is SPECIAL ). This also applies to the politically based posts.

The big problem with proponents of this attitude tends to take the Oppositional (typified by various degrees of hostility and 'arguing' by extremes or absolutes (elevating exceptions/anecdotal/specifics to represent the norm and therefore absolute proof ).

(IMO)many such arguments in the OLO context are exchanges where either or both sides refuse to learn from the exchange.(a subtle difference but an important one. The missing element is any effort towards objectivity).

It's like media 'balanced arguments' (sic) more about flash or technique than facts or perspective. Both sides say their piece but come to no conclusion beyond their starting point.

Both types therefore tend to be non or counter productive in advancing the truth. On the plus side those reading on the side lines may see the comparative objective weight.

Many of the opposing posts facing you now fall into the above opposition by extreme or emotion not objective reason. Keep up the fight.

Yabby (cont)

<< I accepted the decision of the Govt, in having an orderly system. That’s what we now need for asylum-seekers. >>

An orderly system for migration might be feasible, but it's virtually impossible when it comes to constantly shifting refugee movements. Thousands of government agencies and NGOs have been trying for decades to create fair systems for refugees. If it were as easy as you make it out to be, it would’ve been done long ago. Of course, everything's easier when you dispense with the need to treat people humanely.

Rstuart

<< What have you done with the old Yabby, the one who said entertaining things and made think? >>

Yes, I like that Yabby too. Funny though, having debated Yabby many times on asylum-seeker and animal rights issues, I’m inclined to think the real Yabby is in fact what we’re getting here. I’ve always believed a person’s views on animals are a revealing window into their soul and Yabby’s performance here only confirms that.

Shadow Minister

<< There is nothing stopping him hopping on a ferry to the mainland and applying for housing etc, even before his asylum status is verified. >>

This isn’t correct. The only time it’s happened is when a small group of teenaged boys, with no family and in need of community guidance, were brought to the mainland before their claims were finalised. It’s not normal practice and you’re wrong to promote it as such.

<< Labor is directly responsible for the surge in boats, and thus indirectly responsible for the 12 lives lost when the boat sank a couple of days ago. >>

People like those on the Oceanic Viking are taking to boats because they know it’s their only chance of gaining asylum. It’s the ‘turn-them-back and warehouse-them-in-Indonesia’ policies, of both the Howard and the Rudd governments, which are leading to increasing desperation among asylum-seekers and forcing them to risk their lives in leaky boats. The boats have never stopped coming. It’s just that asylum-seekers are finally realising they’ll likely never receive a resettlement option from Indonesia.

Examinator

Thanks Buddy. :)

TZ52HX

I see I've struck a nerve.

You say "Shadow Minister, who has referred to 10s of thousands of refugees on boats, has been everything *BUT* right"

Perhaps you would care to show where I predicted this. Or do you just make up things as you go along?

Considering that your prediction was "As the current controversy draws to a close, the opposition will be even less popular than ever" you are hardly a shining beacon in the field of political analysis.

I posted on the basis of political strategy which requires a step back from the sentimentality of the issue, and if you wish to debate this with me, I suggest you grow a pair and let reality shine into your emotionally clouded thought processes.

If you actually bother to read what I have written, you will see that I express greater concern for the 99% of refugees whose plight is more desperate than the boat people who have been making a living in Indonesia (un-persecuted) and who have $15000 ready cash to come here.

For example, if teenagers can relatively easily access a construction site, and in doing so injure themselves, the site owners are held responsible.

Similarily, Labor has created the environment where people take the perilous journey. The smugglers are directly responsible, but labor cannot avoid some liability.

Labor has slipped from a 16 point lead (landslide) a month ago to a 2 point lead (wafer thin) in the 2 party preferred polls. That's not my opinion either. Where will the polls be next month or 6 months from now.

Note that this is occurring as interest rates shoot up, and the other prong of the coalition attack on Labor begins to bite, people will start to feel insecure, and Labor having been in power both federally and in most of the states for some time, will have no one else to blame.

Bronwyn worries what the rest of the world will think we are terrible
people if the final upshot is not to the liking of the asylum seekers.

Bronwyn, if the world doesn't like the result let them take them in !
I bet that will change their tune.

Global warming and/or peak oil will change our rules very quickly.
We will not be able to consider an increase in population.
It will be impossible. Sooner or later we will withdraw from the
refugee treaty along with a number of other countries. It might not
be for ten years but it will happen.
What Europe is seeing now is but the early signs.
It could even reach; no I won't write that as I am not sure that
many of those here could contemplate what I foresee.
Remember what I wrote a while back about 10,000 ton ships turning
up in Sydney Harbour or Perth ?
Thats where it will go if it gets out of hand,
Think business plans.

Shadow Minister: "There is nothing stopping him hopping on a ferry to the mainland and applying for housing etc, even before his asylum status is verified."

That may be true, but as Bronwyn points out the practical effect of this change is small. And we are all about practicalities here aren't we Shadow? Scoring political points for our side isn't a consideration.

Shadow Minister: "The drubbing that Labor got in the polls indicates that I am not the only one that thinks this way."

So the talking heads say. But since the poll didn't ask about asylum seekers they were just filling an information vacuum with hot air. I can't blame them. That is what they are paid to do. I try not to pay them too much attention though. Several notable things happened in that fortnight: the solar hot water subsidy was scrapped without notice, Costello was appointed to the Future Fund, Rudd said he was all in favour of Australia doubling its population, and of course this asylum seeker thing. With so many possibilities, unlike talk heads and you I am loath pick out a single cause.

But if I were I die hard Liberal supporter, I'd be hoping it wasn't the asylum seeker issue. For all his faults, Rudd is a capable administrator, and given enough time he will put that issue to bed. As it happens he does have the time. Undoing his comments on population would be harder, as he left himself no wiggle room. Nothing short of a full backflip with pike would work. So if I were you I'd be hoping it was the population comments.

Shadow Minister: "plight is more desperate than the boat people who have been making a living in Indonesia (un-persecuted)"

You didn't see the news today eh? The bit about them being beaten, and drinking from wells contaminated with human faeces. Still, this is undeniably a winning strategy, Shadow. It is so much easier to pass glib judgements about others in support of your position if you avoid knowing the facts. Howard proved that.

Hmm, I see I've struck several nerves with Shadow Minister.

Nice little swifty you tried to pull there SM; luckily, you can't go back and change your posts. Here's what you wrote, "we accept that we will get 10s of thousands of people on boats, then we would believe him". And to put your quote in EXACT context.......Your quote was in reference to, if Mr Rudd had said "we accept that we will get 10s of thousands of people on boats" then we would believe him.

So there it is. Shadow Minister, in an earlier post, showed he believes 10s of thousands of boat people "will" be coming. Typical fear mongering.

Nice bit of denial with your above post SM. Better luck next time. As I always say, peoples' "language" always eventually betrays their motives and/or real beliefs.

Also, in the above post SM openly admits he posts on this topic on the basis of political "strategy"........ he sees it as a game, it's just political spin to him. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to possess the maturity and insight to understand that refugees on boats and asylum seekers on boats are actually HUMAN BEINGS. He adopts the tactics of the uninformed, or deliberately attempts to mislead, (it's either one or the other) in order to present the idea that boat people are well off, economic asylum seekers who are in no danger either back in their own countries and who suffer no disadvantage by spending up to 15 years or so in concentra......... oops, I mean "refugee" holiday camps.

Oh well, let the demonisation of boat people on this site continue.

Bronwyn,
Be assured that I participate in these threads because people of an open mind might read them. They are entitled to get a factual view of what illegals are about, not just the romantic spin and propaganda put forward by those encouraging illegal entrance to Aus.

Fact. The Tampa was hijacked by those that she rescued, Captains evidence, under oath, stated he was concerned for safety after threats were made and altered course to Christmas Island, which was not his chosen destination. That dear Bronwyn is hijacking by any standard and those making the threats should have been held accountable.

Fact. The 78 on board the Oceanic Viking are preventing her from going about her normal business. That also could be considered hijacking. At best, the 78 would be termed 'squatters' and should be removed. The world is watching and we would be seen to be fair but strong in giving the 78 two weeks before removing them.

Any fair and normal person would be thankfull to the rescuers and be eternally gratefull. Not these frauds.

An intention to seek asylum does not give persons any right to flaunt a countries laws about entry. They cannot go willy nilly where ever they like. Until such time as they actually apply for protection they are unlawful or illegal entrants. DIAC Refers to them as such.

The difference between the success rate for the illegals and those that arrive legally, and applying for asylum, is simply because the illegals cannot be sent home and this is acheived by them destroying all their docs. Their home country will not take them back without verification. That is why they destroy their papers and identies.

And so the inaccurate demonisation of boat people continues.

Bronwyn and others,
Just a couple of links that may interest you.

First is a bit of history and commentory on conditions in Sri Lanka.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26301207-7583,00.html

Second is about the sabotage of the vessel the 78 Tamils were on.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/asylum-boat-had-holes-drilled-in-hull-20091021-h911.html

Banjo,

Firstly, what an interesting article that first link is. I hope you read the comments as well. I took away a few impressions:

- It appears Sri Lanka's civil war continues, in the comments section of the Australian at least. Both sides lobbing huge globs of propaganda. Someone should explain to them propaganda's rule 101: it order to work, it has to be believable.

- Several pointed out that foreigners were thrown out of the camps when the government took control, and wondered how the good professor was so certain he knew what conditions were like in there now. Since this went unchallenged, so do I.

- A quote from a comment: The truth about the Tamil boat people and their fate are being contested not on their own merits, but, like every other group that has sought refuge in Australia in recent times, as a proxies for the deeper, dare I say tribal, conflict between Left and Right wing in Australian culture and politics.

- Another quote: Sri Lankan Chief of Defence Staff Sarath Fonseka said few days ago that "We must deploy enough troops to provide security for these "resettled" areas. We must in these areas, this virus [former civlian and combatant LTTE members], there are still 1000's of terrorists in IDP camps. We must identify these terrorist and destroy them. [origin appears to be: http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=30552 ]

I'd take that last quote with a grain of salt. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1934060,00.html reported the same speech as "He warned that there might still be thousands of Tigers among them and that they needed to be weeded out".

And finally Banjo, regarding your comments on hijacking and such. No one doubts they are desperate people willing to take desperate measures. Just how desperate is obvious from your example really - unarmed civilians trying to dictate terms to a well armed and superbly trained Navy vessel is movie plot stuff. But to suggest people comfortable in their homeland would do this just in the hope of getting rich is beyond belief. Remember propaganda 101 old boy: it must be believable.

Further to RobP‘s query:
----“ tell me what's stopping [druggies] coming on planes.”
Ya bloomin border security mun –thats what!
Dinya see the ruddy doogs they have noow – cannae even bring a haggis in wi’out them findin it.Cannae ya noooh give The Simpsons a miss, for a wee time, and watch Border Security… it’ll blow ya mind mun!

---“How do you know we haven't already got quite a few drug pushers already in our country?”
Aye Rob lad, we have indeed – but by the same token mun we already have people by the fine old double-malted Tamil name of Moduthagam .
Are ya sayin laddie that, Noahs Ark like, we only need two of each?

Open ya heart mun. Are ye not aware that drug pushers & barons are persecuted all over the world – aaaaaaalllll over the blooomin world mun -and bloomin be the appropriate word since some of their stuff be bloomin like tatties in Afghanystan, right about now.

But more to the point mun, practically everywhere they go, the pushers & barons are hounded, humiliated, harangued, harried, heaped-on, harassed, hounded (jobbie! I be repeatin myself)

I tellin ya now mun. If ye honest to God be lookin fur EN-TRE-PREN-EURS , and those who ken think outside the square.Then I’m here to tell ya mun ya cannae go past them. Talkin about thinkin out the box –how many ways do they come up with to hide the stuff.
Noooh …I tell yah mun, they be the type you want in ya thinkin tanks ,and fucha funds, forget Peta bloomin Costella he be yestdays mun.

Our mantra gotta be, give us ya pedlers & smugglers , ya barons & lab Johnnies, and ya hydroponic Marihuana growers.Here’s our chance to clean-up big time mun!

Let emmm aaall cum in I say.
As that wee bonnie lassie Sally might have expressed it if she had been meetin Harry in Scotland: aaaye, aaaye ,aaaaaaye

Aye Horus, all ye have to do is add a few references to murrr-der, Glaasgow, the bo-oss, Ro-obbie and the po-liss and yud b' a scriptwriter for Taggart me wee laddie. So, why do-on'tchya go there and keep the reffos from leavin' the do-ock. Ye b' inclooded.

*By your logic they should still be risking their lives in unseaworthy boats to get there*

Not so Rstuart, the Vietamese are not fools who give away money
without a reward. Vietnamese would hardly qualify under the
Convention, so why would they be so foolish?
You clearly don't understand my logic or my points of reason.

*Thus my lament above about the standard of your posts*

Hehe, so when you agree with me, then I make good points,
when you disagree with me, my standards are slipping :)

*This is so at odds with normal human behaviour it doesn't require further comment.*

Rstuart, I remind you that every country kid who heads for the big
smoke, seemingly prefers to be a small fish in a big pond, rather
then a big fish in a small pond. Your understanding of the world
and life, is showing here. Those millions of economic migrants
streaming from Africa and Mexico, prove my point.

*Yet no, when the unrest in their local area settled down, so did they.*

Very true, because the rules of the 1951 Convention cannot be
screwed anymore, so the odds go against them. So why should they
risk their money?

Just stop and take a look as to who is arriving on boats. By far
the majority are young males. And what does every parent wish for
their kids? That they have it easier then the parents had it,
better education, better opportunities etc. Families with resources
bankroll these young males for exactly that reason, whilst the women
and children are stuck in refugee camps. Next thing you'll claim
this is humane! My arse its humane, its feelgood stuff.

Bronwyn doesn't know it, but I actually have a soft spot for her :)

She reminds me so much of Miss Taylor, my boarding school teacher.
We boys would have drinking and smoking competitions, with the odd
joint thrown in. We'd tell Miss Taylor that we were "feeling a bit
sick" for things that should have had us expelled. She unquestioningly
swallowed every word, she was so nice.

Today I can only put all this down to some recent studies which
show that high oxytocin females, who also make great mothers,
tend to be more gullible the average, due to the oxytocin effect.

Bronnie has freely admitted on OLO, that her heart rules her head.
She also realises, that I am exactly the opposite. Reality does
not go away, when we close our eyes and wish it would.

When it suits Bronnie's emotions, the 1951 Convention matters,
when it doesn't, like with the 78 Sri Lankans, the Convention
is tossed out the window, in the name of emotion. So who here
is in fact, making it up, as they go along?

*To argue they leave their homes for no other reason than money is both crass and ignorant.*

No Bronwyn, you need to inform yourself a bit more, switch off
Radio National and switch on SBS or even the BBC. People from
Ghana, Nigeria and other countries, are swarming to Europe for the
money, they openly admit it. Nearly every African country has signed
the 1951 Convention, so they could go to lots of places, if they
chose, only they are not rich places, so the greedy ones head for
Europe.

*that its government is no longer able to provide jobs for its citizens. They cross the border to survive, Yabby.*

Tens of millions of Mexicans survive every day Bronwyn. They
just commonly don't survive as rich as those who headed north.

Besides, it is not the role of Govts to provide jobs, that is
extreme left thinking. Enterprising people create jobs. Buy
a broom, bucket and cheap vacuum for instance, hey presto,
"Bronwyn's Cleaning Service" is in business

Banjo

<< They are entitled to get a factual view of what illegals are about, not just the romantic spin and propaganda put forward by those encouraging illegal entrance to Aus. >>

Firstly, I don't engage in spin and propaganda, and secondly, I'm not about 'encouraging illegal entrance'. I'm arguing that asylum-seekers be treated fairly and humanely, and that they not be demonised by the likes of you.

<< Fact. The Tampa was hijacked by those that she rescued, Captains evidence, under oath, stated he was concerned for safety after threats were made and altered course to Christmas Island, which was not his chosen destination. >>

Christmas Island WAS the captain's chosen destination once he'd rescued the asylum-seekers, as it was by far the nearest port. He was ordered not to go there by the Howard Government, but to instead turn back to Indonesia, more than four times the distance. This is when some of the asylum-seekers understandably remonstrated, but to describe their actions as a highjacking is just more of your fanciful demonisation.

<< Fact. The 78 on board the Oceanic Viking are preventing her from going about her normal business. That also could be considered hijacking. >>

Again, only by the likes of you.

<< Any fair and normal person would be thankfull to the rescuers and be eternally gratefull. Not these frauds. >>

Nobody at this stage has proof that any of them are frauds. Thirty-seven of them have already been assessed by the UNHCR in Indonesia and found to be genuine refugees. They've since spent four and five years in Indonesia waiting for a country to take them in, many of them in truly wretched conditions. They're understandably reluctant to disembark there, where they'll likely wait another five, ten, fifteen years. They're unable to work, the children can't go to school, and evidence is mounting that they're being severely mistreated.

<< The difference between the success rate for the illegals ... destroy their papers and identies. >>

Violins please. Banjo's at it again.

And to think I once liked the banjo as an instrument.

*Some sections of our community have simply lost their humanity.*

Not so TZ, some sections of the community look at things from
various perspectives, not all wear their hearts on their
sleeves, as you and Bronwyn do. Some of us are realists.

Trashing Austalia to satisify your emotional needs, is IMHO
not a wise option. You still have to state how many refugees
that you think Australia should take, before you think that
the barricades should go up. So far you have avoided the
question.

*I’ve always believed a person’s views on animals are a revealing window into their soul*

Sheesh, my three sheepdogs each have a beanbag by the fire, they
have a doggie door to come and go, only was has ever worn a collar.
Two of the three are snoozing on the couch, the youngster is out
chasing a couple of rabbits. According to your beliefs Bronwyn,
I must be a saint :)

*The boats have never stopped coming.*

So why don't the boats sail to Japan, or Cambodia, or China?

Bronwyn,
Holy Internationale Bronwyn, they got you hook line and sinker didn’t they.

--First we had the little Bo Peep line on refugees.
--Then last week had your mini Al Gore sermon on AGW
--Now, today, we see the Leon Trotsky US imperialism memorial lecture.
And all on the one thread!

Incidentally, did you know that those poor Mexicans are also rednecked xenophobes (as CJ is wont to put it)
They express great anger that outsiders are using their towns & farms as transit points to the US .

And as for the Tampa affair:
“Christmas Island WAS the captain's chosen destination once he'd rescued the asylum-seekers, as it was by far the nearest port. He was ordered not to go there by the Howard Government, but to instead turn back to Indonesia, more” LOL

You clearly haven’t read the transcript –please go and read it and have another think about it,
I’ll bet if they were white South Africans or Zimbabweans fleeing you’d see the intimidation and evil intent very clearly!

TZ52HX,

I said “Perhaps you would care to show where I PREDICTED this”, fully aware of my previous post on Rudd’s credibility.

My comment was “If Rudd just stopped trying to BS the electorate and said, the pacific solution was wrong, and we accept that we will get 10s of thousands of refugees on boats, then we would believe him.” As opposed to him telling us that there would be no change.

I didn’t think you would be as underhanded or as dense as to deliberately misquote my comment as a prediction, but you were.

Bronwyn,

When I said that there is nothing stopping the boat people hopping on a ferry to the mainland once released from detention, I wasn’t referring to anything in the past, just what can now happen with the dropping of the temporary protection visas.

If they were free to roam on Nauru, they were still not on Aus soil and could not go to Aus without going through customs.

Rstuart,

The ill treatment of the boat people is happening to those caught by the Indonesians under Rudd’s new Indonesian solution, and not to those living there. Those on the boats were not in the detention camps before they attempted to leave.

Shadow Minister is attempting to mislead and squirm himself out of the hole he dug for himself. TZ is 100% correct. Shadow Minister's quote shows that he is ready to accept a possibility of 10s of thousands of boat people. TZ quoted Shadow Minister in absolute context. For Shadow Minister to ridiculously argue it was not a prediction, but rather some type of belief is ludicrously splitting hairs to get himself out of a tight spot. It's ludicrous because either way, Shadow Minister by that statement shows he stands with the xenophobes. It's clear that TZ considers Shadow Minister a xenophobe when it comes to people on boats, and I think TZ caught out Shadow Minister very well.

TZ makes a very good point several times in this thread about the entire world needing to take responsibility for refugees, not just the 1st world countries. TZ is spot on with that. All the nations need to increase their involvement, especially in conflict resolution.

Yabby

<< Today I can only put all this down to some recent studies which show that high oxytocin females, who also make great mothers, tend to be more gullible the average, due to the oxytocin effect. >>

Ah Yabby, just as you did when Dickie was running rings around you on animal rights threads, so too you're doing it here. Whenever female opponents are showing you up and making your arguments look a bit thin, you resort to your old fallback position and toss in a few patronizing and sexist put downs. It always made Dickie look a whole head taller every time you did it, and I daresay it will have the same effect here.

<< Bronnie has freely admitted on OLO, that her heart rules her head. >>

That comment is being quoted unfairly. When viewed in its complete context, I doubt very much that that would have been the case.

Horus

<< --First we had the little Bo Peep line on refugees. --Then last week had your mini Al Gore sermon on AGW --Now, today, we see the Leon Trotsky US imperialism memorial lecture. And all on the one thread! >>

You're getting good value then, aren't you? Stop whinging. :)

<< You clearly haven’t read the transcript ... >>

I'm very familiar with the Tampa story and have no need to re-read the transcript. The true shame of Tampa does not lie in the so-called 'high jacking' actions of those rescued. It lies in the fact that our prime minister callously ordered the captain to take his cargo hold - of severely traumatised, heat-stressed, injured and ill asylum seekers - in direct contravention of international maritime law, thirteen hours away to Indonesia when all the while he was only a few hours from help at an Australian port.

Shadow Minister

<< When I said that there's nothing stopping the boat people hopping on a ferry to the mainland once released from detention, I wasn’t referring to anything in the past, just what can now happen with the dropping of the temporary protection visas. >>

You stated that asylum-seekers on Christmas Island can hop on a ferry to the mainland BEFORE their asylum status is verified. This is TOTALLY INCORRECT. It’s happened once, as the exceptional circumstance I described before, and that was recently, NOT in the past.

You’re confusing your terminology and demonstrating your ignorance of asylum-seeker law. Refugees who are granted asylum in Australia are now given permanent protection instead of a temporary visa, but they DON'T come to the mainland until their refugee status is verified. It's the dropping of indefinite detention, as much as it is TPVs, which is the point you're trying to make.

Yabby

<< Sheesh, my three sheepdogs each have a beanbag by the fire, they have a doggie door to come and go, only was has ever worn a collar. Two of the three are snoozing on the couch, the youngster is out chasing a couple of rabbits. According to your beliefs Bronwyn, I must be a saint :) >>

Ah very funny Yabby. Yes, I agree, it sounds as though your sheepdogs do indeed have a good life. Hopefully, it continues long after they’ve served their usefulness to you as working dogs. Unfortunately though, this aberrant act of decency doesn’t negate the thousands of cold and callous words you’ve written on topics like live sheep export, for example. Sorry to inform you but you're a long way from Saint Yabby yet. :)

<< So why don't the boats sail to Japan, or Cambodia, or China? >>

You know the answer, Yabby. It’s because these countries are not signatories to the Refugee Convention.

Contrary to your fearmongering, the boats aren't all coming to Australia. Tens of thousands of Sri Lankan asylum-seekers are going to Europe, India and elsewhere. Only a very small proportion are trying to get to Australia.

Smithy456

I can see that English is not one of your strong points. I would guess you work with you hands, as your mind is definitely not your sharpest tool.

"Shadow Minister's quote shows that he is ready to accept a possibility of 10s of thousands of boat people"

I don't deny it, and never claimed not to.

What I didn't see as a possibility was Rudd's claim that there would little change. This was absolute BS. I, however, didn't say that 10s of thousand would come, as this was just one end of the range of possibilities.

The nub of TZ'z attack on me was my claim that I had made a series of predictions in the past which were spot on. TZ claimed this was not true, and implied that I had predicted that there would be 10s of thousand of refugees, was clearly false.

Your fuzzy brain might struggle with big words like possible and probable, but try looking them up. Twit.

Also try looking up Xenophobic as you seem not to be able to grasp that concept either. I have an issue with people illegally entering the country to rort the asylum application system, as I have with anyone that breaks the law I am a crimaphobe (yes I made it up). As I have personally brought in a Tamil family legally, I have no issue with their being foreign.

Bronwyn,

The new detention protocol determines that asylum seekers should be released once they are determined not to be a security threat, which is likely to occur before their asylum status is determined. They cannot leave detention onto Aus soil without a visa.

As the temp protection visa is no longer possible, the standard residence visa gives them the right to freedom of movement. Therefore they will be able to move to the mainland and cannot be legally stopped.

I am not an expert in Immigration law, so maybe you could point out where my analysis is wrong. What is to keep them from the mainland? Don't just tell me it can't happen, tell me why.

It's revealing to see that Shadow Minister is now resorting to personal abuse because he's not winning the argument. That's the way some people behave and it reflects only on them. It's called immaturity.

Shadow Minister in his most recent post has lied about what TZ claimed. Tz did not claim that Shadow Minister had predicted 10s of thousands of boat people. The only person to use the word "predicted" has been Shadow Minister, nobody else.

TZ wrote this, "Shadow Minister believes 10s of thousands of boat people will be coming" in reply to Shadow Ministers quote, "perhaps you would care to show where I predicted this". Bingo, TZ was correct. Not once has TZ claimed that Shadow Minister "predicted" anything. TZ is correct because Shadow Minister has confirmed, in his last post, that he believes 10s of thousands of boat people may be on the way over to here. Shadow Minister wrote "I don't deny it" in that last post of his, in reply to "Shadow Minister's quote shows that he is ready to accept the possibility of tens of thousands of boat people". This is what TZ has been saying all along, and until the above post Shadow Minister has been denying it all along.

This is why people are xenophobic about what they falsely claim as a flood of boat people. They don't see the actual, real world numbers. What they see is a flood of boat people, 10s of thousands of them, all on their way to here.

Ok Shadow Minister, let's hear more of your personal abuse and juvenile name calling. Please continue, it's entertaining us. That's obviously all you have left, but it's so nice your house is made of glass. We can see right through it. Have a nice day ol' chum. PS: Better luck next time.

Well thanks smithy, but I really don't need defending. SM puts his foot in his mouth every time he posts on this.

Of course the whole basis of this is that Shadow Minister believes there may be 10s of thousands of boat people on their way.

I outed his errant belief quite a few pages ago. Then finally, when cornered, he outed himself in his above post when he wrote that he didn't deny it.

Good word, xenophobia......... thanks smithy. It describes people like Shadow Minister very well indeed. He's xenophobic specifically towards "boat people"; he's clearly no different from the minority of fearful, scared Aussies dreading the mythical INVASION of 10s of thousands of boat people. Sad individuals. No heart. No humanity. No perspective.

The only real solution for displaced people is for the WHOLE world to bear it's responsibilities

Shadow Minister: "I would guess you work with you hands, as your mind is definitely not your sharpest tool."

Wow. What a classy retort, Shadow.

Shadow Minister: "What I didn't see as a possibility was Rudd's claim that there would little change. This was absolute BS."

So you keep saying. You are emphatic the influx asylum seekers is caused by Budd's changes, but given there are other possible explanations and the lack of solid evidence pointing to any particular one your certainty looks like an ideologues dogma to me.

Anyway whether perceptions have changed or not, what clearly hasn't changed is the treatment of asylum seekers. Regardless of what the law says they may be able to do, they plainly remain confined in an excised territory. I assume most of them will be classed as legit asylum seekers and allowed in because that is what happened in the Howard years.

Shadow Minister: "standard residence visa gives them the right to freedom of movement."

Where do that get that visa from? They can't apply for one and they aren't given one: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/81excised-offshore.htm

I guess what annoys you is that most of the boat people will be successful and gain citizenship. That I can understand. What I can't understand is:

- Laying the blame for this at the feet of the asylum seekers, daemonising them. Whats with that? We are the ones letting them in.

- Delusional claims the only reason we let them is is the Howard era DIC offers were repeatedly suckered.

- Suggestions if we treat them badly enough, they will go away. What would you (SM/Yabby/Banjo/Horus) suggest - put them in cells, forced labour, public floggings for the world to see?

You are just bellicose old men pussy footing around. Face facts. These are real asylum seekers. While we are signatories to the UNHCR, we will end up taking them in because no one else wants them. While that is so they will continue to come, because anybody being persecuted in their own country who has 1/2 a brain will take advantage of it.

*It’s because these countries are not signatories to the Refugee Convention*

Not so Bronwyn. According to the UNHCR website, all three indeed
are! You clearly are making this up, as you go along :)

There are clear similarities between you and Dickie. Both
overwhelmed with emotion, to the point where all reason flies
out the window. Never mind if your country is blackmailed. Never
mind if the system is clearly open to being screwed. The
poor dears need bemothering. To give you credit, at least you know
a little more about refugees, then Dickie ever knew about livestock.

Dickie tried the same argument about Australia's reputation. I was
reading a report the other night, about a boat off Europe, which was
sinking, full of asylum seekers from Africa. 10 ships sailed
past, not one would stop. So I don't think Australia has too
much to worry about, when it comes to our reputation.

Here is your quote once again Bronnie, from the 23rd April:

*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.*

So I have good reason to mention your motherly instincts, when it
comes to this debate, for they clearly affect your judgement,
as your posts show. Fair enough, we are all different, but it did
need to be clarified once again.

Bronwyn,

---“You're getting good value then, aren't you”

Good value! LOL
I paid good money-- and all I got was some dudette called Bronwyn singing “I’’m a new age Barbie doll” and, two dudes dressed as Ken humming along out of tune.I knew I should have saved my money and went to see Rihanna!

Not entertaining, and totally devoid of credibility.

You start off
---“ some of the asylum-seekers understandably remonstrated, but to describe their actions as a highjacking is just more of your fanciful demonisation.

Then when that becomes untenable you start to crib
---“ The true shame of Tampa does not lie in the so-called 'high jacking' actions of those rescued. It lies [elsewhere]

Then Yabby catches you out telling fibs--again!
--- “Not so Bronwyn. According to the UNHCR website, all three indeed
are! You clearly are making this up, as you go along :)”

Practically a mirror image of you last attempted fraud
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3080#73503
Last time on a different thread your claimed oversight –what is the excuse this time?

Just a quick aside that does not relate to the debate here.

Yabby resorts to a pathetically self righteous, sexist putdown when he can't debate effectively. It's sooooooooooooooo 18th century to imply that possession of "motherly instincts" lessens one's credibility in debate. That's pretty dumb yabby. and it reflects only on you. Sexist old men love to use female characteristics as a concocted put down. It shows such an old fashioned contempt towards females. Grow up buddy.

TZ and Smithy456

"INDONESIAN authorities are bracing for a huge influx of boat people, anticipating as many as 10,000 asylum-seekers are waiting in Malaysia to transit through the archipelago and on to Australia."

And that was in June, the number that have already focused on coming to Aus.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/warning-on-wave-of-boat-people-20090629-d2j3.html

"Networks of people-smugglers service the 1 million Indonesian illegal workers who regularly travel to Malaysia by boat. The same networks also help arrange passage to Australia via Indonesia."

So there is sufficient infrastructure to smuggle 1m people a year, and with about 90 000 asylum seekers in Malaysia, the possibility is very real, and can grow fast.

The Indonesians think so, the Aus customs authorities think so, But hey, a brain surgeon that said "As the current controversy draws to a close, the opposition will be even less popular than ever", thinks otherwise. Puleez.

Well smithy,

You said "Tz did not claim that Shadow Minister had predicted 10s of thousands of boat people."

I said that he implied that I had, as follows:

TZ refuted my statement that my predictions were on the money because I "referred to 10s of thousands of refugees."

Or do I need to use really small words and use pictures for someone apparently devoid of inductive reason.

The only reason you are pursuing this fatuous nit picking is because all the facts contradict the labor party line you are mindlessly repeating.

Why do you think Rudd has the pacific dawn tied up for weeks to drop off 78 asylum seekers. The answer is that if he takes them to Xmas Island, it will demonstrate conclusively that there is no Indonesian solution, and there is nothing to stop the smugglers.

Between the boat people and the visa over stayers we are getting there very fast.

If you disagree please show me.

Love it, love it. The xenophobia grows with every post. At least he's not trying to disguise it so much now.

Initially Shadow Minister tried to deny that he believes 10s of thousands of refugees could be on their way to here. Then he was finally forced to out himself, and say he doesn't deny it. Now Shadow Minister's numbers are rising to a possible 90,000 with an upper limit of 1 MILLION asylum seekers looking for leaky boats ....... all wanting to head for HERE.

Yep smithy, that's an appropriate word you used, xenophobia. "XENOPHOBIA" regarding boat people, is Shadow Minister's primary tool of trade here.

The only real solution for displaced people is for the WHOLE world to bear it's responsibilities
Posted by TZ52HX, Thursday, 5 November 2009 4:56:21 PM

TZ, That would help a lot. The UNHCR only has 20 countries in which place their registered refugees. Australia is the 3rd largest receiver with 13000 PA.

If you really believe what you wrote above, then why not get off your bum and lobby to get the rest of the world to take their share. Instead of ranting here and supporting those that are trying to get around the system by entering Aus illegally.

Your compassion for the illegals has helped kill about 51 of them since our government eased the measures that had stopped them trying to come.

*It shows such an old fashioned contempt towards females*

You are indeed correct Smithy. Putting down females for no good reason
is very much 18th century. Today's world is based on reason and logic,
along with evidence.

So I'm thrilled that you are raising one of my pet topics on OLO :)

Fundies on OLO claim that the world is around 6000 years old.
Should I simply agree with them, or look at the evidence?

So it seems that I will have to drag you into the 21st Century.
You could do worse then start here, with your education:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/neurok.html

Nobody has claimed that men are superior to women. The claim is
that on average, men and women are different but equal. The claim
is that hormones affect human behaviour and judgement. The
claim is that each of our endocrine systems produces different
neurochemistry, which affect our every thought and action, including
our judgement.

So are you now going to deny that hormones affect human behaviour
and judgement and that men and women on average are affected
by different hormones to some degree?

Are you going to claim that women have no maternal instincts and that
these instincts don't affect their thoughts and behaviour?

Welcome to the 21st Century Smithy, for it is the Century of
understanding how the human brain functions!

It's now getting so comical it's crazy. The xenophobes have REALLY, REALLY, REALLY come out of the closet tonight.

If you believe the xenophobes there's ONE MILLION boat people on the way (Shadow Minister) and I'm a MURDERER (Banjo) and women with "motherly instincts" can't debate to the standard of men (Yabby).

Folks, this is the standard of people we've been communicating with here. These are examples of the MINORITY of Australians who fear they'll lose control over their destiny because of boat people.

The MAJORITY of Australians are NOT like that. They are cosmopolitan, intelligent, informed, educated and seek solutions instead of blame when things don't go as they wish.

Gee TZ you are certainly getting yourself all worked up there aren't you? You speak of all the supposed "xenophobes" on this site.
Are they all ignorant xenophobes because they don't agree with you?

All I will say is that surely we must discourage anyone making the perilous journey across the sea to our shores? The many asylum seekers who have died at sea should be the last to lose their lives this way.

I don't believe anyone is being xenophobic by encouraging people to take a safer path to seek asylum.

Shadow Minister

<< The new detention protocol determines that asylum-seekers should be released once they're determined not to be a security threat, which is likely to occur before their asylum status is determined. >>

No it's not. What are you on about? Yes, they have health and security checks done first, but they dont leave Christmas Island until they've been verified as bonafide refugees.

<< What is to keep them from the mainland? Don't just tell me it can't happen, tell me why. >>

Once they've been proven to be genuine refugees, yes, they receive permanent protection visas and resettle on the mainland. That is the purpose of seeking asylum. You might prefer them to live in endless limbo on three-year Temporary Protection Visas and never be able to obtain a decent job and plan their lives, but that has been clearly demonstrated to be a policy failure. Not only do the refugees themselves suffer enormously as a result, but they fail to contribute to the wealth and well-being of this nation in the way they very much want to and are invariably capable of.

Yabby

<< Here is your quote once again Bronnie, from the 23rd April: *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.* >>

Thanks for the quote. As I thought, it's full context clearly shows you've been misrepresenting my words. Contrary to your November 4 post, I have NEVER stated that my heart rules my head. What I said was that YOU think that is the case. There's a big difference, and you know it. :)

Horus

<< Last time on a different thread your claimed oversight –what's the excuse this time? >>

I'm not making excuses. I made a mistake. Big deal. I've made post after post here of substantive on-topic debate. You've hung around on the sidelines, contributing little of substance yourself, but ready to pounce on any slip-up of mine, no matter how slight. So you've found a few. Bully for you.

Oh dear me suze, nice "spin" there. Your rather silly "loaded" question full of spin "Are they all ignorant xenophobes because they don't agree with you" shows precisely where you're coming from: You can do a lot better than that.

People like Banjo and Shadow Minister are xenophobes because they think we're threatened by FLOODS of refugee boat people. Shadow Minister has in just several pages upped his figures from 10s of thousands to ONE MILLION. They don't post as they do because of a "genuine" concern for boat people ....... HECK they couldn't give a damn about boat people. They want boat people THERE and not HERE. Their concern for deaths is utterly disingenuous.......... they DON'T want boats stopped because people die, they want boats stopped because they FEAR a FLOOD of refugees.

Until the whole world takes responsibility for a combination of resettlement and homeland conflict resolution, refugees will continue to be displaced. Just as they have been for hundreds of years, just as they are now, and just as they will be for the next hundreds of years.

When people feel they have no hope, some of them will take horrible risks. But when that happens we should not treat them like animals. They should be assessed, and genuine asylum seekers treated according to our law and non genuine ones treated according to our law. HISTORICALLY, when famine/war/persecution subsides in a country the flow of desperate refugees also subsides from that country. CONFLICT RESOLUTION is VITAL to the well being of present and future refugees.

But refugees are ridiculed here on this site. They are depicted as frauds, terrorists, dishonest and nasty types of people.

They've been demonised by just a handful of bitter people on this site. Disingenuous people, using the deaths and drownings as a tool to try to gain the high moral ground, while their real motivation is simply they don't want boat people, they don't like boat people and they don't care about boat people. Utterly disingenuous.

Well not to worry, its all over now.
Did you hear the news this morning.
They have sent a message that they (the Tamils) have decided they are
going to Christmas Island.
As well the Indonesians have said the ship must either disembark or leave today.
Next time we should not help them out, they can pick up in their own area.

So you had better get on with it.
Did you get the message Kevin ?

TZ52HX,

You are getting too silly for words. I'm tired of your lies and deliberate attempts to misrepresent.

As you have no cogent argument have resorted to name calling and capital letters.

I said "So there is sufficient infrastructure to smuggle 1m people a year"

With 90 000 refugees waiting, 10s of 1000s of boat people are a real possibility.

You are so clueless as to what is happenning that you even missed the deliberate error I made in mentioning the pacific dawn instead of the Oceanic Viking.

Do you even read the news, or does it simply get in the way of your rhetoric?

In 2001 a boat sank killing about 350 asylum seekers, the coalitions answer to stop this dangerous traffic was the pacific solution which reduced the flow and loss of lives to almost nothing.

The number of people granted asylum hasn't changed, just that it is done in a safe and orderly manner.

Your unfettered sentimentality is killing people, and the blood is on your hands.

Bronwyn,

The new policy that I posted clearly states that the detainees can be released before their asylum status is determined. To release them on Aus soil they require a visa of some form.

As they have not been charged, there cannot legally be any restriction on their travel. What or who is going to stop them? If you know please tell me.

This scenario has yet to be tested, but I can definitely see it playing out as I described.

Shadow Minister has just written that TZ has resorted to name calling because he has no cogent argument. So how does that inaccurate charge sit with the fact that Shadow Minister, right here on this thread, has repeatedly used the following personal abuse:

"Twit"

"I suggest you grow a pair"

"Your requirement for proof is infantile"

"Your mind is definitely not your sharpest tool"

"Your fuzzy brain might struggle"

"Shows a complete ignorance"

"Let reality shine into your emotionally clouded thought processes"

"Or do I really need to use small words and use pictures for someone devoid of inductive reason"

Does it therefore follow that Shadow Minister has no cogent argument, owing to his use of personal abuse? All this personal abuse was written By Shadow Minister.

It says more about him, than the people he was abusing.

And again, in his last post, he's at it again: "Blood is on your hands" he writes. That's what the several xenophobes here do when they have no cogent argument ..... they imply that those who don't agree with them are indirectly responsible for killing boat people. It's their sad attempt to take the high moral ground, at the expense of tragic deaths.

Smithy,

It's called obfuscation." 'The best form of political defence is attack' Insult the person get them off the thread that is so threatening (revealing).

It is in fact the consequences of having a fixed Dogma.

I would like a $ for very time I've been called party partisan particularly by the 'conservatives' rather than answer the question.

Last night on Q&A Hockey climbed into Richardson about telling lies in politics. Hockey stated he doesn't lie in politics. Yet when asked a direct question that required a yes or no (i.e. Do you want to become the leader of the party?) He first attacked, deliberately tried to shift the responsibility to the moderator, then obfuscated.(Personally they both provided proof of why I wouldn't trust either or the party [fixed Dogma adverasry] system)

If the practical purpose of a lie is to hide the truth and obfuscation is the same therefore the two are for practical purposes the same. One can then deduce that SM hasn't got a valid argument and is prepared to lie about it.

NB What is flawed, is his faith in fixed dogma and the equally flawed "opposition" and all major parties. Simply put politicians and their acolytes must LIE to support their Dogma if they hope for power...

The question to his ilk is WHY?

Shadow Minister

<< The new policy I posted clearly states that the detainees can be released before their asylum status is determined. >>

My apologies, I didn't realise that the statement of yours we're debating (made BTW many pages ago now) was specifically related to a link you'd posted. I've checked out the ASRC link (an excellent source BTW) and can at last see where you're coming from!

The section you're referring to is policy change that may have been in the pipeline, but which has been well and truly put on hold now, due to the steep influx of arrivals on Christmas Island. As it currently stands, asylum-seekers are certainly not coming to the mainland before their claims have been verified. Some have already been detained on Christmas Island for around twelve months and you'll be pleased to know their stay definitely looks set to be a lengthy one.

<< As they haven't been charged, there cannot legally be any restriction on their travel. What or who is going to stop them? >>

First of all, what the hell would they be charged with? They're asylum-seekers. They haven't committed a crime.

I don't know whether or not they'd be granted travel visas. I doubt it very much. Even if they were, their priorities would be learning the language, finding work and familiarizing themselves with a new country and culture. I doubt very much that any would have the money or the inclination to travel while they're waiting for their refugee determination to come through.

Rest assured, this is all very much academic at the moment. There's no way the Rudd government will move in this direction now, if ever. With the country's redneck nerve once again reinvigorated, Kevin has his eye fixed on votes, not asylum-seekers' rights.

I do consider it to be the best solution though, irrespective of any of the scaremongering scenarios that your vivid imagination might care to concoct. It would save the taxpayer millions of dollars and would ensure a much smoother and less problematic transition for both the asylum-seekers and the Australian community.

Bronwyn,
Sorry to butt in but in the article section I pointed out the illogical nature of the Christmas island Indian Ocean 'solution' and how at best it is a temporary solution.

Last night on Q&A it was noted that the primary reason the Pacific solution worked was that there was significant naval(blockade) presence in the intervening seas. Pacific solution was then simply the cherry on top. However current tactics negate the 'blockade' idea.

Given Indonesians reluctance to take asylum seekers regardless where they're picked up sends a message to international shipping to take them to Australia (Tamper #2) or ignore them.

I raised the point in the post that about how long will Indonesia will continue to be the 'dumping ground'.

Given the the significantly lesser conditions in Indonesia and following logic it stands that one way or another the 'flood' sic will continue unabated. How long will it be before CI and the islands solution are full or conditions are a problem? then there is the enormous cost.(very unpopular with the 'red neck nerve' (good description)

I jokingly how to be effective in discouraging refugees from coming here we needed to make Australia seem worse than other places. Closing tourist bureax (spelling?), internet etc.

But I did float, that given the numbers are smallish, change the visa law to allow volunteers to work on farms (jobs we won't do) as Guest workers. It would placate some, in that the refugees are earning their keep and not such a drain on tax dollars. Supporting govt assisted infrastructure would add value to farms etc. not 'wasted' on some island.

The people would be paid. And if their threat were to change they could return 'home' with money to start again. I wonder if that couldn't be politically sold. education would be at non working times. 'Hard work' would 'discourage' others who 'allegedly' want a free ride. the HR benefits are obvious.

Well what do you think?

Shadow Minister,
From his last few posts, TZ has shown to anyone that can read that he is an idiot and not capable of producing any rational argument. He has not put anything forward of sustance and his posts are purely rants. Best ignored in future. TZ has not been able to produce anything that refutes the poor character of the illegals I have outlined.

However, he did start this thread and for that I thank him for giving me again the opportunity to expose the illegal boat people for the opportunistic, dishonest liars that they are. From the moment they bribe an official in their home country for a passport to the lies they tell our officials here in Aus, it is a series of deceit all the way. They even sabotage their own boats and put others lives at risk simply to get their own way. If their stories of persecution were true, they would not leave their wives and kids to the risks and squallor at home and cowardly slink off on their own half way round the world and hide here in relative luxery on our social security.

If you get the impression that I do not think very highly of these gate crashers to our shores, you are quite right and I hope the government can stop the boats coming, which will leave more places available for the genuine refugees.

Turnbull today proved a point, he had no opinion on that boat in Indonesia.
I do have, that country asked us to rescue them.
Therefore should take them, back, yes they came from that country.
Rudd is In a corner, if he had bought them here he would have been seen as weak.
And many more would start the journey, yet I think he should have, that time has past.
If he brings them now?
We will never see the end of people smuggling he will not bring them here.
Bronwyn and others will not understand me, but I am not prepared to sacrifice my progressive government trying to empty the Sydney harbor with a jam jar.
The easier it is to come and stay the more will.
Yes it is tragic, yes I hurt to think of that, but even if we wished to we can not fix the worlds problems.
I will never ever get in my own refugee boat and leave Labor for the greens, I deep;y understand no party can please every one every time.
If we took a million right now, we could do it, we would need to find yet more room for the millions who would say me too.
Humanity would be better served by removing the governments these people flee.

Examinator

"But I did float, that given the numbers are smallish, change the visa law to allow volunteers to work on farms (jobs we won't do) as Guest workers."

Like I said on the other thread this is not true. Life is not roses for everyone. I am not sure people realise how thin a thread many Australians are hanging on to. People can sponsor a refugee if they have the means but do not pack them off to compete against those that do not.

Banjo
I understand the lack of trust and also the stories those that say they support them do not help. Too many fibs and maybe if we simply got the truth all would be different. The other problem is that we do not trust the refugee claims process in Australia. This is central to the whole debate. If we had UNHCR processing the claims on mainland Australia here could be far more trust in the outcomes and offshore processing not such a huge deal for the government. Seems we are at war with ourselves over that.The acceptance rate compared to UNHCR is far too high giving added incentive for economic migrants to try their luck here. It also does need to be explained to Australians why. Seems everyone forgets Australians come first, it is a democracy and everyone works for us, not for their own little religions.

So left, right and centre we are fed lies, lies and more lies. From every side. Everyone an overnight expert on conditions in countries they have never stepped foot in or if they have, have judged with mass amount of enthocentricity. Along the way we have insulted just about every country in our region making us look egocentric, arrogant bullies and have played word games rather than factual.

I am also sick of hearing Ausralia is racist, xenophobic when that is dismissed by the attitudes toward immigration and the highest percentage in the western world. It is not acceptable for every country and also this one to be subject to so much abuse by self centred individuals.

Bronwyn: "is policy change that may have been in the pipeline, but which has been well and truly put on hold now,"

I don't know whether it is well and truly on hold (link?), but I see you are right in saying it isn't law. The relevant bill's home page is here: http://j.mp/3u1tN8 (only the bureaucrat could think the original URL is sane).

So we have this surge in asylum seekers, and the laws Howard put in place are unchanged. Hmmm.

examinator: "Well what do you think?"

I can't see much of a win either way. If you are trying to discourage them from coming, then Ken Parish's "The Indian Ocean Solution" is better. On the other hand, if you accept the inevitable resolution the current situation is most of the people on Christmas Island will be awarded permanent residency (just as happened in the Howard era), and think it is best to handle it in the most efficient way possible - then it is also a lousy idea. You are far better off just letting them find their own feet in Australia as soon as possible.

Now we're getting juvenile name calling and personal abuse written by Banjo and Shadow Minister. It only shows they've lost rational perspective on the issue. Just look at Banjo's last post, it speaks for itself. It reflects very badly on him.

examinator

<< Sorry to butt in ... >>

You're very welcome to 'butt in' anytime. I've wanted to respond to many of your comments here, but my posts are filling up all the time, just countering the usual lies these threads always attract. I read your post just now and was about to repond, when I noticed more of Banjo's drivel! Ho hum. :) He can rant about his fictitious 'illegals' all he wants, but he won't have the last word while I'm around. I've got to go now, but I'll get back to you.

Banjo

<< ... I thank him for giving me again the opportunity to expose the illegal boat people for the opportunistic, dishonest liars that they are. >>

Have you ever met any asylum-seekers or refugees? I've met many over the years and none of them are anything like what you're describing here.

<< If their stories of persecution were true, they wouldn't leave their wives and kids to the risks and squallor at home and cowardly slink off on their own half way round the world and hide here in relative luxery on our social security. >>

What are you suggesting? The men stay home and let their wives make the journey? As you've had explained to you many times before, most cannot afford the money or the increased risk level of a passage for the family, so they send one person. It makes sense that it's the fittest and strongest, as it's no trip for the faint-hearted. Besides, many of the single men you're ignorantly describing as cowards, have had their families killed, and often before their very eyes. You have absolutely NO idea of what you're talking about.

Yes, some do resort to desperate measures to prevent having their boats turned back to Indonesia. Again, if you truly understood the horror of what's happening there, and of the numbers of refugees warehoused - forgotten by the rest of the world - for years on end, or of the numbers being refouled back to danger and death, you'd soon start to understand their motivation.

Belly: "Turnbull today proved a point, he had no opinion on that boat in Indonesia."

Seesh. Belly, that comment is just unacceptable. It is an open and transparent attempt to return to the original topic as raised by TZ. Keep that up and you will tarnish the reputation of OLO for good.

Belly: "Humanity would be better served by removing the governments these people flee."

Like we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, you mean? Doing that generated the last two waves of asylum seekers.

There are no easy ways out of this one Belly. Either you accept them and perhaps end up "trying to empty the Sydney harbor with a jam jar", or you reject send them back home and live with your conscience. Saying you will fix the problem by being the white knight who sails in and overthrows the evil dictator is as much of a pipe dream as Howard's plan to give all the asylum seekers TPV's until some other country wanted them. Well, that is not quite true. You maybe believe the white knight caper will work. I don't think for a second Howard ever believed someone would take our unwanted refugees. It was just one of his politically expedient "white lies". Despite all the vitriol thrown here at Howard and now Rudd, the reality is the policy of both is the same - accept the refugees.

*They've been demonised by just a handful of bitter people on this site.*

TZ,flapping your wings by calling people names and
shouting (big caps), is not going to do it for you I am afraid.

Fact is that most Australians disagree with you, look at any poll.
You personally might dream of a world where everyone holds hands
and sings Kumbaya, but reality is a little different. Self interest
still drives human behaviour, ignore it at your peril.

Most Australians are not against Australia doing its share and taking
its share of refugees. We do that with our annual quota. That could
be increased a bit, its up to Australians as a whole to decide by how many, not me or you as individuals.

Australians want a fair system and an orderly system with upper
limits. Your proposal delivers neither, you refuse to define an
upper limit. So flap your wings all that you want, it won't do
you much good.

Everyone knows that the present system is being rorted. I've had
so called refugees from Afghanistan, admit that to me, when I've
asked a few questions. Not all Australians are as gullible as
you and Bronwyn, believing their every word. Some of us indeed are
a bit more skeptical. The discrepancy in UNHCR and Australian
processing also makes that clear.

The real problem however is that the UN 1951 Convention is a long
time out of date, it should be changed to reduce rorting. Other
laws, like our tax laws, are regularly updated as circumstances
change, not so in the case of the Convention, so it has loopholes
in it like Swiss cheese has holes.

At present, taxpayers are funding this rorting, poorer Australians
are missing out on funding which could help them, genuine refugees
are losing out too, yet you want more of it! Perhaps the Govt
should introduce a law, where you can bring in your very own asylum
seeker, as long as you foot the bill

RStuart,
I didn’t notice your little quip camouflaged amongst the bluster:
“ What would you (SM/Yabby/Banjo/Horus) suggest… These are real asylum seekers. While we are signatories to
the UNHCR, we will end up taking them in because no one else wants them. While that is so they will continue to come, because
anybody being persecuted in their own country who has 1/2 a brain will take advantage of it”

What an impeccable piece of reasoning, they are ‘real’ because RStuart said so.
It’s only bettered by the second point , we better take them in because no one else will!
(I bet you don’t employ that principle in your personal dealings with people day-to-day!)
If that’s the template we are going to apply, start adding six zeros to any projections/budgeting re : population levels, green-house-gas levels, housing availability & cost ,infrastructure costs.

Please disabuse yourself of the Western middle class delusion that “the ones prepared to sacrifice home, family … are also the ones from countries in the throws of a civil war”.If you have any overseas experience you should know that people don’t need to face persecution/conflict to be dreaming of emigration to a Western country. And boats ( & airport arrivals) are just some of the avenues being exploited, you might recall the corruption & feeding-frenzy around studying-for-residency, or marriage-for-residency, or transfer-of-monies-for-residency capers!

For those on the subcontinent the apocalyptic narrative being peddled by refugee advocates ( & soon no doubt to be milked for all its worth by the George Negus’s of the media world, as soon as they get their snout through the door )– provides the best pretext/opportunity to get easy access to the West-- that any Sri Lanka ( whether Tamil or Singhalese , AND any Indian nationals who wants to tag along) will have in decades.

It’s about marketing—and human nature : If it’s rewarding to be an engineer you will have hundreds, if it’s rewarding to be a fleeing Tamil everyone will be one

Bronwyn,
“I'm not making excuses. I made a mistake. Big deal..”

You make a lot of ‘mistakes” but you do have one redeeming quality —you tell some good funnies—like this for example:
“[but] I've made post after post here of substantive on-topic debate”
“SUBSTANTIVE”?

In summary all your arguments amount to this:
The Singahlees are bad bad–tell lies
Howard is bad bad – mean hearted
Rudd is bad –confused policies
The refugees are – good good good –innocent lambs
Any one who differs is — bad bad –xenophobes & racists

Yabby wrote the following, " Everyone knows that the present system is being rorted. I've had so called refugees from Afghanistan, admit that to me, when I've asked them a few questions".

I don't believe you've spoken to even ONE "so called refugee from Afghanistan" Yabby, at any stage in your life. I think you've just made that up Yabby. You've implied that the people you claim to have spoken with are frauds.

Have you "really" spoken to them Yabby or am I wrong Yabby?

Well, if I am wrong Yabby, PUBLISH THEIR NAMES HERE. NOW.

THEN WE'LL REPORT THEM DIRECTLY TO THE AUTHORITIES.

If they are like you say they are, just "so called" refugees, then you are 100% safe from any legal action regarding the publishing of their identities.

But you won't do this will you Yabby.

Why?

Because the refugee frauds from Afghanistan you claim to have spoken with ............... DON'T EXIST!

Not so TZ, I might be blunt, I might not be PC, but I tell it like
it is. Its exactly for these reasons that I formed my opinion.

Before I sold my last business, I used to travel to the airport
2-3 times a week, on the way picking up various industrial supplies
at various companies. A number people who had entered the country
as refugees, worked as storemen, forklifts drivers etc. 911 was
a hot topic at the time, so were the Taliban, so were Afghans fleeing
Afghanistan. It always lead to interesting debates!

But as no matter what I say will convince you, I'll rub the post
from Franklin under your nose once again, which Horus has already
done, but I doubt that you have read:

*Paul Sheehan wrote an informative book entitled “The Electronic Whorehouse” which detailed bias in the media on various issues. In a chapter on the breathtaking bias of the ABC on the asylum seeker issue he gave the interesting statistic that in Indonesia in 2001 the UNHCR rejected 80% of asylum seekers as not being in need of protection, rising to 95% in the cases of Iranians applying for unhcr protection. This contrasts markedly with the high acceptance rate for those asylum seekers arriving in Australia’s migration zone. The reality was that the usual practice for almost all asylum seekers was to destroy their identity papers and travel documents, which made the determination of their identities and verification of their stories of persecution and return to their countries of residence or origin a very time consuming, difficult and costly task. Those found not to be in need of protection withheld all cooperation for return to their countries of residence and filed appeal after appeal. In the end the government took the soft option and most were granted protection.*

The rest of the post is here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9648#154510

Clearly we are a soft touch, open to rorting and it happens
constantly, no matter how much you bleat.

Horus: "I didn’t notice your little quip camouflaged amongst the bluster"

What can I say Horus? Given how much you are pretending to miss, I am surprised you bothered to pick it out.

Horus: "they are ‘real’ because RStuart said so"

I am honoured you think so Horus. But really, rather than just taking my word for it you would be better off looking at the reasons I and others have given for thinking they are real and deciding on that basis. I realise that is difficult to do when you are pretending they don't appear on the screen before you, but it makes for a much more interesting debate if we discuss the real world, as opposed to your fantasies.

Horus: "we better take them in because no one else will!"

You are confused. You evidently think we have a choice. We made our choice when we signed the UNHCR. Now we are obligated provide a safe haven for refugees that arrive on our soil. Some (Howard, and most recently Ken Parish yesterday on OLO) have suggested we can just temporarily take them in until another country volunteers to take them off our hands. My point was they are deluding themselves, because as I said "no one else will". Actually, I think Howard just pretended he thought that - a debating technique you will no doubt recognise.

Yabby: "Paul Sheehan wrote an informative book..."

Yes, that is one data point Yabby. Here is another: most of the refugees on the Viking King were approved by the UNHCR in Indonesia. http://www.theage.com.au/world/ready-to-risk-lives-and-life-savings-20091101-hrm1.html Accordingly, you support their entry into Australia? Do let us know.

As for your conversation with your Afgan mate, I trust you realise while it was evidently a definitive moment for you, given the tone of the debate here the rest of us here find it about as convincing as a love note from a randy black widow. It is a sad comment on some OLO inhabitants. Sad or otherwise, verifiable facts with citations are the only thing that carry any weight. Well that and snarky comments, I guess.

rtuart, The issue with the Viking is that they were rescued and take to the appropriate port but then demanded to be taken to Australia. There are some on Christmas Island climbing flag poles or some such endeavour because they want to go to New Zealand. It is absurd we start a ocean line cruise service. It cannot happen, even with the best intention that is just silly. Though silly leaving them for weeks as well, it should have been CI or forced removal right from the start.

Just heard the news that Alex, the famous asylum seeker was deported from Canada in 2003 for anti-social behaviour, He has since started people smuggling operation based out of India. I am so sick of lies in every direction.

examinator

<< ... the primary reason the Pacific solution worked was that there was significant naval(blockade) presence in the intervening seas. ... However current tactics negate the 'blockade' idea. >>

I think there's still a fair bit of 'blockading' going on myself. Over eighty boats have been turned back to Indonesia in the last twelve months. As pointed out by rstuart, contrary to popular belief, not much of what Howard put in place has been changed.

<< ... change the visa law to allow volunteers to work on farms (jobs we won't do) as Guest workers. >>

I agree, these types of solutions are worth considering. There have been situations where refugees have worked in abattoirs and other hard-to-fill jobs and have contributed greatly to the communities that have taken them in. I think there's scope for them to help revive struggling rural townships, with much needed labour and an injection of new families into the area, though there can be pitfalls. They do need good support with language and cultural integration, in the first six to twelve months especially. A lot of communities are well placed to provide this though and are keen to do so. Quite a few places around the country have declared themselves as Refugee Welcome Cities and Towns.

Yes, there are so many options we could come up with, that would provide refugees the lifeline they need and at the same time greatly benefit Australian communities, if we could just get past the fear and hysteria and talk these options through rationally. It will take real leadership to make that happen though, and unfortunately I don't think we'll find it in Rudd.

Belly

<< I will never ever get in my own refugee boat and leave Labor for the greens ... >>

No, Belly, I agree, that would be one river too far to row for a rusted on Laborite such as yourself. Who said the Greens would want you anyway? :) One thing your statement proves though is that even you realise that the Greens are the nation's conscience.

Yabby

<< ... I'll rub the post from Franklin under your nose once again ... >>

Franklin posts the same old discredited references in every thread. He's had each of his two arguments soundly rebutted many times over, but he's so stuck in his own little time warp that he keeps trotting them out regardless. No thinking person would take a scrap of notice.

<< Paul Sheehan wrote an informative book ... >>

And in the words of Crikey, 'The Wankley Award goes to … Paul Sheehan.'

http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/08/and-the-wankley-award-goes-to-paul-sheehan/

Paul Sheehan's opinions on migration issues are as credible in the world of journalism as Franklin's are on OLO.

Golly, Yabby, fake conversations and sources scraped from the bottom of the barrel, you'll have to do a bit better than that. :)

And STILL there's ZERO official policy from the opposition regarding how they'd handle the Pacific Viking episode. They've provided Australia with NO alternative solution. They've thus failed to provide alternative leadership. Mr Hockey on Q&A POINT BLANK REFUSED to offer even an "opinion" on what should be done. No wonder politicians have such a small degree of respect from the public regarding their integrity.

And guess what?

When Labour are in opposition they do EXACTLY THE SAME THING (most of the time) as the Coalition is currently doing .......... oppose for opposing's sake. The goal being attempted political advantage.

In a year's time, Labour will come out on top in the opinion polls regarding this (in fact they are STILL on top even now, according to the latest poll). Why? Because by then better solutions will be in place, the hysteria from the minority will have abated, and the voting public will remember that the Coalition offered NO SOLUTION at the time when a solution was needed. In other words, the Coalition showed they were incapable of offering alternative **LEADERSHIP**. And Labour will RAM THAT HOME, again and again, at the election.

And that's a real shame. We need a STRONG opposition, with strong alternative policies. We need real choice ....... at the moment the ONLY choice we have is Labour, and that's not good for our country. We need TWO viable choices, for our democracy to work at it's best.

In the meantime, Banjo and his ilk are happy to demonise boat people with quite hateful posts. What a shame. The vast majority of decent Aussies are MUCH better than that.

Come on Malcolm ...... it's been weeks now and NO POLICY!

For every good policy your greens have Bronwyn ten idiotic ones exist.
White knight?
Hardly trade barriers total isolation is my way not war.
Turnbull is pure politician, no policy no pride just ego and ambition.
Rudd has the sweat on his brow, he will find no easy way out of this, bringing them here is now a back down.
And a removal of the door.
Forcing them from the ship, the best idea, with bring the left out screaming .
Asking his wavering partners to remove them against sea law.
How will he do it?
Turnbull awaits on one side Bob Browns legion of the lost left on the other, Kevy old son you are in it.
Avoid it if you will but folks the fact while they flee sometimes horrible lives some are indeed coming with pockets full of cash.
Some paid more in American dollars to smugglers than I could put together in months.
Let the debate rage, but do not be blind to truth.
Insults from greens to my party are a grin, most greens come back to us in second choice and in any future government controlled by a greens senate the whole world will see how our of touch, radical, silly greens can be.
See you at conference Bronwyn.

RStuart,

--“What can I say Horus?”
Well ….”sorry Horus, I was on the wrong track but you’ve straightened me out now “
would be a good starting point
(We could discuss the terms of your crossing the floor & membership fees later )

--“Given how much you are pretending to miss, I am surprised you bothered to pick it out.”

You are right and you are wrong.
I didn’t miss what the others were saying, I didn’t see it of great value
I was looking for the grains amid the chaff –and there were few of them.

But what I missed was the Old RStuart.
I can recall you facing down CJ Morgan when he ran the line that Aus was not pulling it’s weight in refugee terms.
And I cited your contribution more than once in following threads
Yet today I strain to tell the difference between you and him .

As for choices and the UNHCR:
We are not yet under UN suzerainty –though we are quickly heading there
We have every choice –we could withdraw from the refugee convention tomorrow.
Gough Whitlam put major restrictions on its operations/coverage of issues.

and here’s another one from Gough

"Any sovereign nation has the right to determine how it will exercise its compassion and how it will increase its population."
Gough Whitlam

TZ52HX

Demonise boat people? To accept their claim of genocide is to demonise Sri Lanka. Seems the staff of the customs vessel are now demonised. I would not take that in the workplace. If you take any side of the debate you demonise. Some claims for the advocacy of boat people are straight out propoganda. Australians excercising their democratic right to have a voice on the issuee are demonised on a regular basis. Demonising is the name of the game. The truth? I really do not think anyone knows it but more importantly, few seem to want to know it.

rstuart,
Those on board the Oceanic Viking claim to 'have registered' with the UNHCR, which is not the same as being approved as refugees. If they have been approved by the UNHCR, there is little doubt that they would meet our criteria for same. In that case they could easily fly by commercial air to Aus and seek asylum on arrival. Cheaper than paying a smuggler.

Bronwyn,
I continue to depict the illegal boat people as frauds because all the evidence shows that, not because I have any pre-determined hatred for them. For example, it is well known that most fly to Malaysia and they require passports and visas to do that. That being so, and if they are truely refugees, they could obtain a visa and fly to Aus and seek asylum on arrival. We dispence about 10 million visas a year , so visas are available.

If they are truely refugees, to fly here and then seek asylum would be cheaper, faster and much safer. The big catch for them is that, knowing they are unlikely to qualify as refugees, we would be able to send them back because we have verification as who they are and their citizenship.

So they go the long, back way and destroy their identities, etc. Their intent is to deceive.

Bronwyn, I frankly could not give a stuff what you think of
Paul Sheehan or his opinions. What he did do is quote some
numbers, as factual information. Now either that information
is correct or is not correct. Calling him names, is not
going to disprove the figures I'm afraid.

Asylum seekers are clearly not so silly as to implicate themselves
as having rorted the system, that would be foolish. They do
however commonly have a better knowledge then people like you do,
about what has gone on amongst other members of their community.
Some will in fact admit to the rorts, when questioned further.

What amazes me on this topic, is the sheer gullibility of people
like yourself. Either it's that, or you are pushing your own
propaganda at any cost.

Any public system, where people stand to make big gains if they
rort it, will be rorted if the laws allow it. That is why the
tax laws and other laws need regular updating, people find loopholes
and jump through them, when it is in their self interest to do so.

Yet for some reason you seem to want to deny this, when it applies
to so called refugees. Were they struck by lightning perhaps,
to change common human behaviour? Come on Bronwyn, get real!

*the Greens are the nation's conscience*

More like an assembly of the limp left, emotionally engulfed.

What amazes me on this topic Yabby is the sheer gullibility of people such as you and Banjo. How you stereotype ALL boat people as wealthy frauds, who choose to live for up to 15 years in concentra - - - - - - oops, I mean "holiday" camps in 3rd world countries, while all the time they could be living the good life back where they came from.

In "REALITY" though, it's pretty obvious you 2 don't believe the inaccurate propaganda you write (surely NOBODY could be THAT gullible), so it can only be assumed your opposition to boat people is merely ideologically based. There's just a handful of people here who display a fear of boat people, and when one reads their posts it's clear their opposition to specifically boat people is based on IDEOLOGY and political spin. Those handful of people are not as stupid as they appear, they know EXACTLY what they're doing when they write their * * SPIN * *.

>>Any public system, where people stand to make big gains if they
rort it, will be rorted if the laws allow it. That is why the
tax laws and other laws need regular updating, people find loopholes
and jump through them, when it is in their self interest to do so.<<

Yabby,

The equation is this: either enforce the laws so tightly that no unexpected arrival is allowed to enter Australian territory, including legitimate asylum seekers or relax the situation somewhat so that legitimate asylum seekers can get into the country with some hangers-on that undoubtedly exist. Australia has done the latter over the past 2-3 decades, which I think reflects well on our wealth and maturity as a nation.

So, of the two options above, which one would you pick, and why?

RobP, that is an intelligent and very fair question, which is a
welcome change on this thread. So I'll try and explain my
answer and why:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-real-reasons-for-asylum-seeker-arrivals-20091106-i0j3.html

suggests that if you look at the data a little bit objectively,
both sides of politics are wrong, there are push and pull factors
at work.

The net result of that, is highly confusing law and an unsatisfactory
solution, no matter which way you look at it. We tell people we
will treat them humanely and try to do so, next minute we fight
them off with sticks, when they try to sail here. So neither of
your choices is going to solve it and the present, hopeless situation
will continue.

Meantime huge resources are thrown at this problem to shuffle it along
without solving it, so pensioners, taxpayers etc are outraged. It
is certainly a vote swinging issue.

So the problem cannot be solved, given the present rules. That is
why my push for plan C, to finally update the UN Convention or its
interpretation, or the way Australia abides by it, for after all,
it is still little more then a voluntary agreement which is 60
years old now.

Close the many present and open loopholes, the net effect will be
more genuine refugees and much less rorting that goes on now,
at much lower expense to the Australian public.

Australians by and large do have a sense of "fairplay" and would
respect any Govt that had the testicles to tackle these issues
head on and finally brought about the required changes, so long overdue.
IMHO it would actually win any Govt quite a few votes.

Banjo

<< Those on board the Oceanic Viking claim to 'have registered' with the UNHCR, which is not the same as being approved as refugees. >>

As I've already stated, thirty-seven of them have definitely had their claims for asylum approved by the UNHCR.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-concerns-for-tamil-asylum-seekers/story-e6frg6no-1225793354709

Do you think they'd be telling the whole world, through their hand written messages, that they've been approved, if they hadn't? They'd know it would destroy their credibility and their chances of resettlement straight away. They wouldn't have come this far to do anything so stupid.

Stop trying to paint these people as fraudsters when you have absolutely no proof.

<< I continue to depict the illegal boat people as frauds because all the evidence shows that ... >>

What evidence?

Yabby

Your solution is totally unworkable. People have always taken to boats to escape desperate situations. That will never change.

If it was possible to stop all boat movement and have all refugees wait patiently in camps, as you insist they should, we would in effect be condemning them to a life sentence. The current average stay is 17 years. If camps were the only option the length of that stay would increase markedly. How can you condemn others to that, just so that we in the West can continue to live our extravagant lifestyle, untroubled by the knocking at our door of people in desperate need.

There is nothing 'fair' about any of that, so stop pretending you're on about fairness.

Yabby,

That link comes across as sober and believable analysis of the situation.

>>... suggests that if you look at the data a little bit objectively,
both sides of politics are wrong, there are push and pull factors
at work. <<

No doubt this is true. Likewise, coming from a diverse bunch of people, not all unexpected arrivals are pulling swifties and not all are kosher either. The truth is somewhere in the middle in both of these spectrums.

>>... So neither of your choices is going to solve it and the present, hopeless situation will continue.<<

It won't solve it, but that's the best we have for the moment. As we live in an imperfect world, we have an imperfect solution, true. But, given that and until a better solution emerges, I'd opt for bringing in asylum seekers than not.

What's your Plan C? Closing loopholes usually means completely changing tack or in everyday language, "moving the goalposts". How are you going to set up a system so that you're only getting legit asylum seekers? Is your Plan C just code for putting up the shutters totally via Australian law or is there still room for nuance?

>>Australians by and large do have a sense of "fairplay" and would respect any Govt that had the testicles to tackle these issues head on and finally brought about the required changes, so long overdue. IMHO it would actually win any Govt quite a few votes.<<

I agree with this if the Govt did it properly.

Bronwyn, I understand how you feel about the boat people asylum seekers, as I am sure most of them are legitimate asylum seekers.
However, do you not think it is dangerous for our Government to be seen to more readily grant asylum to boat people before they grant asylum to people wanting to come to Australia by more usual means?

If for example, the Government said '...ok, if you make the admittedly perilous journey here by fishing boats, that are not built for passengers or for such overcrowded decks, then we will take you to Christmas Island for processing and you will get in quicker than other would-be refugees."

Would you be comfortable with the fact that many more boats will then embark on the trip to Australia, from all over the world, with overcrowded decks of asylum seekers on board?

I am all for immigration and for Australia taking many more refugees than they already do. I am not prepared to agree to allowing some asylum seekers preference just because they happen to live close enough to Australia to take the journey by boat, thus risking their lives, and causing much consternation to our already stretched coastline border protection authorities and emergency rescue crews.

The rules should be the same for all would be asylum seekers from anywhere in the world.

Smithy and TZ,

While we have both been trading insults, I have been the only one backing up what I have said with facts, links, and news articles.

You have provided no argument cogent or otherwise.

Until you bother to upgrade your posts from infantile taunting you cannot be taken seriously.

With regards the oceanic viking crisis, the coalition line is that it a situation of labor's own making, and if their policy had been followed, it would never have arisen. They are happy for labor to twist in the wind. It would make no political sense to give labor either something to attack or an out.

Considering that KR and Julia Gillard have not missed an opportunity to goad, taunt and mock the coalition, it must be very sweet indeed.

Your hope that in a year's time that Labor will be ahead in the polls on this is founded on what? I can't see how. Maybe you would enlighten me as to how they would achieve this?

Bronwyn,

As you have pointed out, the discussion was academic, as Rudd is very likely to back track on his promises of ending indefinite detention. However, Rudd has not officially reversed this policy, and as the 90 day processing time is fast approaching its end, he will shortly be faced with either releasing the detainees with no proof, or publicly reversing his policy and continuing with indefinite detention.

Horus: "But what I missed was the Old RStuart."

Their is no "old rstuart" Horus. The rstuart you seek is the pedant that has always inhabited this site. My pet dislike is people insisting their fantasy is reality when facts they must be aware of show it is unlikely. CJ did that - the very article he quoted showed the reverse of what he claimed. I could not let it pass. To CJ's credit he immediately acknowledged the mistake. You, Yabby, and Banjo are doing the same thing here. I can't resist biting.

Take this "the boat refugees are all frauds" claim. Reasons to doubt this are:

1. There has been a vicious 26 year civil war in Sri Lanka, with atrocities the modus operandi of both sides. It ended with Sri Lankan Army Chief General Sarath Fonseka saying LTTE rebels who came to surrender carrying white flags will be killed, forcing the 1/4 million Tamils into camps and evicting foreign observers, and then saying LTTE rebels and supporters must be weeded out of the camps. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/04/refugees_in_sri_lanka.html

2. Prior the end of the war, around 136,970 had fled the conflict. http://ochaonline.un.org/HUMANITARIANAPPEAL/webpage.asp?Page=1743 Now there has been an upsurge.

3. Most of the asylum seekers on the Viking King have been vetted by the UNHRC.

4. Over 90% of boat people have been deemed legit in the Howard years.

Despite all that, you say these people aren't real refugees, which I presume means you think thing are just peachy back at home. Evidence offered is:

a. They do some desperate things to get in.

b. They ditched their papers.

c. They had some money.

d. Yabby points to the discrepancy found by Paul Sheehan. This had some legs, until it hit me the quoted Australia's figures were very high. The vast majority or asylum seekers arrive by air, and almost all are rejected. Methinks Paul cherry picked his figures.

By any measure these reasons "for" are very weak compared to the reasons against. Yet you insist I should just accept they are taking us for suckers. Tell me you aren't are serious.

*not all unexpected arrivals are pulling swifties and not all are kosher either. The truth is somewhere in the middle in both of these spectrums.*

Absolutaly, on that most people agree. This problem is not just
an Australian problem, its a huge problem in places like Europe
too, with significant global political outcomes. IMHO leaders
in many of those countries, if it was put to them, would be quite
prepared to look at changes to the global system, to make it more
acceptable. No politician will ever satisfy the whims of the
emotional screamers, in our case the Bronwyns and TZs, but although
they make alot of noise, their numbers are small in electoral terms.
But the opinions of the general public matter and they vote.

Changing the 1951 Convention is not so easy, but there have been
alterations etc before. It needs one major clause added, which
lets countries close large loopholes, as they develop and are
abused.

People like Bronwyn may wave the Convention around as justification
for asylum seekers to destroy their documents with impunity, but
it majorly pisses off the general public. It also makes proving
the true story behind any claim virtually impossible, for the onus
is on Australia to disprove any story which a claimant can dream up,
not so easy when the action was half a world away. When we know
that these people had documents boarding a plane etc, to the public
that is not "fairplay".

Secondly country shopping is not just an issue here, but a major
one in Europe. Many Afghans will bypass a whole host of European
countries to get to Britain, as they provide the cushiest facilities,
all in English. If people are worried about their life, they
would be happy to be alive, not determined to pick and choose where
they live. Country shopping separates the true refugees from
economic migrants.

If Govts want public support on refugee issues, they can't just
keep passing the parcel, they need to address these
things.

Bronwyn,
The message given to the journalist was that many had 'registered' with the UNHCR. The words assesed or approved was not used. The Melbourne woman is wrong. She also claimed they had spent 5 years in Indonesian camps. Untrue, They said "in Indonesia", nothing about camps. There is no evidence that they had been in any camp before they set sail to Aus. In typical refugee advocate style she adds spin.

You want evidence that they are frauds and liars, etc.

1. If they have passports and can get visa to enter Malaysia, they could get visa to enter Aus. You have ignored that.

2. They have sabotaged their boats.

3. They enter Australia illegally. That is the reason for detainment.

4. They destroy their papers and identities, to prevent being sent back home.

5. They attempt intimidation by threatening self harm and have threatened the lives of their kids.

6. Police report states that recently they deliberately blew up a boat which killed 5 persons and injured others, including our naval officers.

7. They have sold copies of interviews with our officials on the black market, in the ME, with the intention of providing coaching for others at interviews.

8. They did hijack the Tampa and are now hijacking the Oceanic Viking by preventing her from going about her normal duties.

This adds up to people who deliberately set out to deceive and circumvent our procedures. Poor character reference.

Bone fide refugees do not need to do these things to get assesed

RStuart,

“My pet dislike is people insisting their fantasy”—well then, lets disabuse them of some of those fantasies!

Fantasy No.1 & 2 There’s been a conflict in Sri Lanka –that proves those exiting are “ refugees”
i) If you’re a Tamil & your motivation is to --escape persecution-- why would you by-pass Tamil Nadu ( the land of the Tamils) India, where many other “refugee” & non-refugee Tamils reside –by pass Burma & Thailand where many illegals from the subcontinent already live/work ( don’t tell me they don’t --I’ve met them!) to transverse a dangerous ocean to get to OZ?
ii) Having made it to Indonesia ,why would you INSIST on a short-list of destinations. Beggars cannot be choosers–but apparently refugees can be very choosey!
iii) Why are the vast majority of Tamils continuing to live Sri Lanka –they are not all locked up –are they just cowards/fools?
iv) We have accepted BOTH Tamils & Singhalese as refugees –think about that a bit!

Fantasy No.3 “Most of the asylum seekers …have been vetted by the UNHRC”
What does this vetting entail: You say you’re applying for asylum, I ask are you being persecuted, you say yes , I give you a certificate ---you’re now a bona fide refugee. Unless the claimant is an idiot who mouths-off about the big house he wants in OZ –as the few rejectees apparently did--there is little chance they will be found against. The is no way any UN/OZ official can, verify, their claims –it’s a fantasy.

Fantasy No.4 “Over 90% of boat people have been deemed legit in the Howard years”
Ditto answer No. 3 -- Howard was by-and-large content to work with the existing UN refugee bureaucracy.

Fantasy No.5 “you think thing are just peachy back at home”
No – it is not peachy in much of Asia/Africa/Sth America unless you’re from the upper echelons.
But lack of peachiness does not a ‘refugee” make. The convention was never intended as an avenue to
trade-up to a more affluent country –but that is what it is increasingly being used for!

Horus: "but apparently refugees can be very choosey!"

I don't follow the logic. Once you decide to leave your homeland, if you then look around for the best place to move to you aren't by Horus's definition a refugee?

Horus: "are they just cowards/fools?"

Cowards? 100,000 were killed during the conflict. Fools? They were rounded up and put in camps at gun point.

Horus: "We have accepted BOTH Tamils & Singhalese as refugees"

OK, I have thought about it. I can't see why it is significant. You will have to spoon feed me.

Horus: "What does this vetting entail"

You don't have a clue what it entails Horus. You didn't bother to look it up. You just invented a story that suited your purposes, and then assumed I would believe you. You evidently think I am very gullible or a complete idiot. How do I know this? Because I did look it up. You can find the procedure here: http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf

Horus: "Howard was by-and-large content to work with the existing UN refugee bureaucracy."

Yabby/Sheehan said the reason we accept these people is because we much more lenient than the UNHCR - that was the point I was addressing. Now you say we are accepting them because we work within it. For what its worth, I agree with you. I think the DIC officers processing asylum seekers arriving in boats are just as competent as those processing airline arrivals (who reject almost all). In fact in some cases they are probably the same ones. What's more I am confident our Australian bureaucracy is equal to the best in the world, setting a standard in interpreting the UNHCR most would like to emulate.

Horus: "it is not peachy in much of Asia/Africa/Sth America"

Correct. That is why we get refugees from them too.

Problem with boat poeple is we do not allow them to make their way to shore and find their own way. We have to deploy major search and rescue missions. We have a naturally difficult border but they are not trying to breach that, just our ocean borders. It is simply not viable as a means to apply for refugee status. In the US the wet back as they are called were drowning or perishing in the desert all the time but it was considered their choice. In a nanny state we are limited by our desire to take over the individual responsibility for their own safety.

Also economically. In the past and in countries of mass migration, whether economic or not, there is not the support refugees receive here. So again social welfare restricts the numbers.

There has been a few people here say they can go to rural areas for work displacing opportunities for locals suffering more than most from economic downturn. So there is a not in my backyard mentality. We will take them and palm them off onto struggling regional centres. Of course the farmer is happy, afterall no employment workplace laws seem to apply to them.

So if we do have open border policy they should finish the journey on their own.They should not recieve direct benefits. The government should fund NGO like the Red Cross to run the camps. You should expect shanty towns to pop up. Urban centres must accommodate them, the only towns with money in the country are mining towns and too prohibitively expensive for anyone not in mining. This is what happens in the real world.

Utopia is not an earthly place.

Horus,
There is one thing you did not say about these illegals getting refugee status.

In the ME the success rate of those seeking refugee status by the UNHCR, is 10%

I am trying to find the success rate for those persons arriving here legally and then seeking asylum but have not got the rate as yet,but think it is less than 50%

The success rate for those arriving here illegally and seeking asylum is 90-95%. One could put this down to a far more lax or accomodating criteria, however I believe it is the fact that the illegals destroy their identities, etc. thus preventing us sending them home, as their home countries will not accept them without proof of citizenship.

As an alternative to making the measures less inviting for all to come here, perhaps we could have a special catorgory for those without documents and hold them indefinately at say Nauru. that would stop the practice of destroying docs and attempts to enter illegally.

Yabby: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-real-reasons-for-asylum-seeker-arrivals-20091106-i0j3.html

That was a great link. You would have to read the response from his peers to get a real feel for how well the good professor's scale works. But taken at face value it shows Ken Parish's "Indian Ocean Solution" may work.

I find it easy to take it a face value. Unlike now, there were no huge changes in push factors in 2007-2008, so the 20% increase doesn't have too many other explanations other than the softer face shown by the Rudd government. I saw with some amusement the professor put those changes down to "John Howard grandstanding" - which is another way of saying the same thing and so sounds right. The pacific solution has been largely dismantled at the end of the Howard era because it was economically unsustainable, currently the laws governing handling asylum seekers haven't changed, and of course the practical implementation is unchanged - refugees are still incarcerated in an excised territory away from the mainland.

The article doesn't mention 2009, but I assume the same logic applies - given there have been no changes to the way the law is implemented the increase we see now is due to push factors.

The other reason this is all ironic is the article you posted doesn't support the rather extreme arguments being pushed here by you, Shadow and friends.

- There is no suggestion these aren't "real asylum seekers".

- There is no suggestion the change in government policies produced the surge we see now (ie the difference between 2008 and 2009).

And finally, this makes a mockery of TZ52HX's claim the Liberals don't have a "new" policy. Why do they need one? They still have their old one, and it for now is still the law. Well not quite - we no longer have Howard's grandstanding. Effective as the professor said it was, I don't miss it.

Shadow Minister: "[Rudd] will shortly be faced with either releasing the detainees with no proof, or publicly reversing his policy and continuing with indefinite detention."

I am tempted to say this is the first reasonable thing you have said. But that's churlish - without your continual needling, it would not have surfaced the laws are in fact unchanged. There have been no inflection points so far, but this 90 day time limit is one. It will be interesting to see what happens, won't it? If they are allowed onto the mainland without TPV's we will see the first real practical change in the way asylum seekers are handled.

Banjo: "The Melbourne woman is wrong. She also claimed they had spent 5 years in Indonesian camps. Untrue, They said "in Indonesia", nothing about camps."

I presume you read this from some web page. There have been so many claims and counter claims that have later proved to be misunderstandings, if would be helpful if you provided the link you are quoting.

Banjo: "however I believe it is the fact that the illegals destroy their identities, etc. thus preventing us sending them home, as their home countries will not accept them without proof of citizenship."

Try reading the UNHCR guidelines I posted above Banjo. Certainly destroying their identifies slows down processing. But in the end, if they can't prove they only have citizenship in some hell hole or other they can't return to, they won't be accepted as refugees. It is a UNHCR requirement. To put it another way, the contention that the UNHCR demands we accept all anonymous people as refugees is just absurd.

I don't dispute that some are making it as difficult and as time consuming as possible to verify their asylum claims. I guess it is a backup strategy. If they don't get accepted, at least they get to be safe here for a year or so. Who knows, after a year things may have settled down at home.

Given there are perfectly good and reasonable reasons for destroying documents, wrapping a conspiracy theory around it is unwarranted.

Well so much argument, however the Australian people want to have resettled refugees and both sides of politics do as well. It is not even about if we allow them, it is about how to deter them. Much of the world the same. In Europe they were originally steeped in guilt on the jewish persecution and did not want to be seen to repeat history, but now anti-semitism is the on the rise again throughout Europe so history afterall does repeat. The mindset of some displaced people is not compatible often with host country and causes conflict. It is not the best outcome for either side. Especially when fear of being persecuted leads to persecution of anyone that does not agree with them. That is insane.

All our refugee resource at the moment should focused on Afghanistan as we really have moral obligation. However even there I would like to see a safe area set up as was done for the Kurds in Iraq. Tamils, the war is over, no proof of genocide, screening camps normal post war and are quickly being wound up. The war is over.

Banjo

<< The message given to the journalist was that many had 'registered' with the UNHCR. The words assesed or approved was not used. The Melbourne woman is wrong. >>

Did you read the link I provided? It clearly stated that 37 of the 78 aboard the Oceanic Viking had been “assessed as refugees by the UNHCR”. I provide you with direct evidence and you just ignore it and continue repeating your same old incorrect argument. No wonder you're so convinced you're right about everything. You ignore all evidence that doesn't fit to your narrow and predetermined view. Besides, I've read the same thing in report after report now. You’re plain wrong, once again, and you need to admit it.

<< She also claimed they had spent 5 years in Indonesian camps. Untrue, They said "in Indonesia", nothing about camps. >>

Oh, so you did read the article after all! You've just shown us all how prone you are to cherry picking what suits.

You're right on this point though. They haven't all been in camps. Some have been in rented accommodation, some of which is not too bad, but most of which is fairly appalling. The camps are totally inhumane and some in particular are truly horrendous.

Whether they've been in camps or rental accommodation though, the end result has been much the same. They've all been left in complete limbo for four or five years, unable to work, study, educate their children or do anything to get on and improve their lives, all the while having being verified as bonafide refugees.

Would you patiently put your life on hold for five long years and willingly resign yourself to another five, ten, fifteen years of waiting? Or would you too think that after five years of playing by the rules and being totally ignored and forgotten, that something a little more proactive was in order?

TBC

Bonwyn, hey can return to Sri Lanka. Their government has assured their safety and it is the government of Sri Lanka's reponsibility. the war is over. Sinhalese have been deported so waste of time trying now. LTTE were far scarier that GOSL.

Banjo (cont.)

<< You want evidence that they are frauds and liars, etc. >>

The list you provided is hardly evidence.

<< 1. If they have passports and can get visa to enter Malaysia, they could get visa to enter Aus.. >>

I’m not 100% sure on this, but I think the passports that get asylum-seekers from say Pakistan to Malaysia are often provided to them by the people smugglers. Again I’m not 100% sure, but my guess is that once in Malaysia, any passport that might have got them that far, just won’t take them any further. The reason that a lot of asylum-seekers don’t have passports is not because they’re fraudsters as you allege (and with no evidence whatsoever to back up your allegations too BTW), but because it is simply too difficult and too dangerous to apply for one. Besides, it in no way negates their right to seek asylum in countries that honour the Refugee Convention.

<< 5. They ... have threatened the lives of their kids. >>

When? Where's your evidence? I hope it’s not of the Children Overboard variety.

<< 6. Police report states that recently they deliberately blew up a boat which killed 5 persons and injured others, including our naval officers. >>

Despite that NT police report, the cause of this incident still hasn't been established conclusively. There's another inquiry and a coronial report to come yet. Much of the evidence points to the incident being a tragic accident and that is very likely to be the final conclusion drawn.

Rstuart

<< There have been no inflection points so far, but this 90-day time limit is one. It will be interesting to see what happens, won't it? >>

Increasing numbers of asylum-seekers are being detained on Christmas Island for ever-longer periods of time. I’m not sure how many, but there are definitely a number who’ve been there now for around twelve months. I don’t think we’re in any immediate danger of seeing the 90-day time limit being honoured any time soon.

BTW, your measured and well-reasoned posts are much appreciated. :)

TheMissus

<< There has been a few people here say they can go to rural areas for work displacing opportunities for locals suffering more than most from economic downturn. So there is a not in my backyard mentality. We will take them and palm them off onto struggling regional centres. >>

That’s not at all an accurate representation of what I said.

Looking to regional areas was offered as only one suggestion in a raft of measures. It wasn’t to be a ‘palming off’ of responsibility or a ‘displacement’ of locals as you suggest. As I’ve already pointed out, many regional communities have in the past put their hand up to welcome refugees. They’ve learnt through experience that they can provide a desirable boost to dwindling population numbers and can fill employment gaps within the community.

No, I’m not ascribing to unrealistic utopia dreaming, but nor am I succumbing to the self-fulfilling negativity that runs through many of your posts. With the right policy settings and the right leadership, Australians can be relied on to act as good neighbours. The problem at the moment is that our leaders are pressing the fear buttons and appealing to our baser instincts, rather than our more noble ones.

<< All our refugee resource at the moment should focused on Afghanistan as we really have moral obligation. >>

I agree with you, our moral obligation to Afghanistan is absolute, as it is with Iraq.

<< Bonwyn, hey can return to Sri Lanka. Their government has assured their safety and it is the government of Sri Lanka's reponsibility. the war is over. >>

Again I agree with you, the war is over and hopefully Sri Lanka can soon be a safe place for all its citizens. At the moment though, it is clearly not. It’s been unsafe for some of its population for thirty years now, so it’s not a situation that will resolve easily. I agree though that working with the Sri Lankan government towards this aim has to be a focus of our government and others in the region.

>>It also makes proving the true story behind any claim virtually impossible, for the onus is on Australia to disprove any story which a claimant can dream up, not so easy when the action was half a world away. When we know that these people had documents boarding a plane etc, to the public that is not "fairplay".<<

Yabby,

Your "half a world away" argument cuts both ways. If you don't know how to assess a claimant's story because he's half a world away, how do "we know these people had documents when boarding a plane"? I'm sure some have been caught out doing so, but their destroying documents should be seen in the context of their situation. What your argument shows is that there is still a degree of doubt in some of the claims. However, that doesn't mean Australia should turn into a bunch of Nazis and lock them all out (or turn them into long-term prisoners in detention centres) is all I'm saying.

I still reckon we should screen the asylum seekers as well as we can via interviews and international intelligence etc and take the few hangers-on along with, and for the sake of, genuine asylum seekers. However, once you take that route we should understand that future decisions on migration to this country will be subject to a "balance of risk" test. In essence, this means that when the negative effects (to Australia's interests) of migration outweigh the positive effects for the asylum seekers in fleeing their countries, our migration policies and strategies should be reviewed.

*BTW, your measured and well-reasoned posts are much appreciated. :)*

Translated that means that our Bronnie is in deep doo-doo here and
needs all the help that she can get :)

Bronwyn, once again, your little heart is beating so hard for those
78 on the Oceanic Viking, that you totally ignore the big picture
here. All heart and no brains I call it :)

Even if some of the people on that ship have been assesed as being
genuine refugees, under the Convention Australia has no responsibility
to take them and Australia in the end, cannot save the world.

But see what is happening now!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26318336-421,00.html

So this is seemingly a new ploy. Sink the boat, ring Australia
to send a ship, then hijack the ship. You seemingly see no problem
with that.

So do you think now Australia should rush out another ship, every
time asylum seekers ring for help, only to risk another hijack?

Does the country just accept blackmail?

Commercial ships would be watching this little drama unfold with
interest. Eventually it will lead to what we have in Europe,
asylum seeker boats sinking, commercial ships sail straight past
without stopping, as they don't want to be tied up in disputes for
weeks and months.

By fussing over the 78, you are totally ignoring the big picture and
the ramifications of all this.

Rsruart, if you reread what Sheehan wrote, you will notice that
after appeal following appeal, following appeal, some people were
still accepted into Australia, despite not qualifying. It was
the easy option, for of course we are a soft touch.

Bronwyn, in most of the world you don't live or move without a national
identity card, Australia is a rare exception. That includes Sri
Lanka, everyone has one by law.

RStuart ,
--- [refugees choosey –why shouldn’t they be?]
An analogy: You meet a beggar on the street. He says he’s “hungry” . You say “come I’ll buy you a meal”.Take him across the road to a café .He snears & say’s “here, no way, I want the five star French restaurant up the road” –is his poor-fellow-me story credible or not – does it make you less sympathetic or not?

---- "are they just cowards/fools?"(followed by a lot of emotive claptrap)
Why do I keep getting the impression you’ve only half read my post .
The number of Tamils fleeing –in any direction–- as a percentage of the Tamil population, is small--does that raise even a sliver of doubt in your mind about the varsity of the holocastesque stories you are swallowing hook line and sinker.

--- "’ We have accepted BOTH Tamils & Singhalese as refugees’ … You’ll have to spoon feed me”
How credible is it that BOTH can find absolutely not escape the others persecution on the whole island of Sri Lanka?
And lets says by some mafia type feuding tradition it be true they can’t live near each other –how is moving to OZ
where there are sizable partisan populations of each going to help it ?

---- Vetting –“because I did look it up. You can find the procedure here”:
Nice try Stuart! – show me now , exactly, in the 61 pages where you found evidence that contradicted my summary?

And yes you are gullible –proof provided below :
---Try reading the UNHCR guidelines … in the end, if they can't prove they only have citizenship in some hell hole or other they can't return to, they won't be accepted as refugees.”

What a joke –the reality is if we have no place to return them to, we get stuck with them.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/man-who-sparked-rights-call-pleased/story-e6frg97x-1111118304487

And, lack of peachiness (i.e. splendid or fine) : http://www.answers.com/topic/peachy
is NOT a qualifier for refugee status--only the gullible would accept it as such.

Yabby

<< Translated that means that our Bronnie is in deep doo-doo here and needs all the help she can get :) >>

Ah Yabby, what it really means is that rstuart’s posts are a welcome breath of fresh air in amongst the dross being served up by the likes of you and Banjo. :)

I’m holding my own in this debate, thank-you Yabby, as are the other half-dozen or so posters here who’ve managed to retain a sense of compassion and decency. We’ve pretty much outdone you in numbers I think and certainly, in quality of debate, we’ve outshone you all the way. :)

<< So this is seemingly a new ploy. Sink the boat, ring Australia to send a ship, then hijack the ship. You seemingly see no problem with that. >>

First of all, you need evidence to support your assertion that asylum-seekers are deliberately sinking their boats.

Secondly, I’m sure most people embarking on a journey as hazardous as this one, would like the security of having a mobile phone with them, especially when they can no longer rely on sea captains like Arne Rinnan to come to their rescue.

Thirdly, mobile phones are a fact of life these days for most people and refugees are as much allowed as anyone else to have one. They’re not expensive. Or is this just one more privilege that you don’t think they’re entitled to?

Fourthly and most importantly, the reason asylum-seekers are resorting to this is that Australian and Indonesian policy is to turn all boats back to Indonesia. They’ve done it on more than eighty occasions this year. No wonder, asylum-seekers are becoming increasingly desperate.

<< Does the country just accept blackmail? >>

This might constitute blackmail through your mean-spirited eyes, but in reality it’s a last ditch plea for help from desperate people who’ve co-operated all along with Indonesian authorities, but who after many long years of fruitless waiting have finally had enough. It’s a position that requires empathy to be well understood, so I don’t expect you to be able to grasp it at all.

bronwyn.. But you do no show empathy to Sri Lnka. To accept claims at face value incites resentment in that country and prolongs the conflict. Same as the diaspora funds.

Sri Lanka is in the process of reconciliation. They have the long winded task of de-mining northern sections of the country and weeding out LTTE members.

Why does the west continue to inflame this conflict with such nasty accusations against it and fund the terror of it's citizen? I am sorry I do not see any empathy. I do see the usual imperialism from the US and EU because China, India, Iran are all involved leading to usual suspect games.

Mr Smith goes to Colombo and Senator Joyce suggests they be returned to Sri Lanka. Best news I have heard. I thhink 2 weeks since I asked for Sri Lankan solution. Instead of working with a friend, helping a friend with the hardship they face we instead abuse this nations efforts. All this money would have been better spent in Sr Lanka ensuring fast resettlement of those in screening camps and the de-mining process. Instead most seem intent on taking the conflict offshore and choosing to fan the flames of conflict.

Not sure how that is moral highground. You take one side, never means it is the right side.

Indeed, Bronwyn. It's great to see the voices of truth, reason and compassion getting the upper hand in the debate about asylum seekers. Many thanks to you, TZ52HX, Smithy456 and rstuart for hanging in there against the hateful lies and distortions promulgated by the 'usual suspects'.

I've been suffering a bit from bigot overload, so I've been avoiding the asylum seeker threads at OLO for the last few days. Thanks again for not letting them have it all their own way - indeed, in successfully and patiently refuting the bulldust that passes for agument from the refugee bashers.

Cheers to the good guys (and girls)!

*I’m holding my own in this debate, thank-you Yabby*

Ah but the truth is slowly being revealed Bronnie. Now you concede
that blackmail and all its consequences are quite acceptable to
you. Never mind the Convention, we'll ditch that too in this
case. Hardly well thought through, just pure emotional reaction.
All very sweet, but hardly rational.

*First of all, you need evidence to support your assertion that asylum-seekers are deliberately sinking their boats.*

http://www.theage.com.au/national/asylum-boat-had-holes-drilled-in-hull-20091021-h911.html

Well perhaps they just drilled those holes for fun! According to
that article, they just happened to have a satelite phone handy
too.

Never mind that the war in Sri Lanka is over, never mind that
3000 people a day are being released from camps and going home,
never mind that Sri Lanka could well have sorted things out in
just a few months. You think that permanent residency in Australia
should be the first prize for blackmail.

RobP, in answer to your question, people can't board planes for
international flights, without documents

Bronwyn,
I did not keep any of the artigles that said some of the 78 had 'registered' with the UNHCR. However am positive and seeing the topic still attracts the MSM, it will possibly come up again and if I see it I will post it, as i did with the boats sabotage piece, for you earlier..

Surely you do not expect anyone to simply accept the word of a person in Melbourne, of a Refugee advocasy group. A person who makes the fundamental mistake of claiming the 78 spent 5 years in an Indonesian camp. She handles the truth loosely and that is being kind.

You claim that the illegals may have trouble getting visas to come all the way to Aus. Here are some examples, source DIAC

TOTAL ARRIVALS BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH. 2007-8
Afghanistan 6895
India 316037
Iran 22969
Iraq 14787
Malaysia 291808
Pakistan 21900
Sri Lanka 69708

What about the number of successful onshore refugee applicants for the year 2007-8.

From Aghanistan 32
Iraq 221
Iran 97
Sri Lanka 415

These are all in the top ten of applicants and it is worth noting that, in that year, ONLY 13 persons came by sea and were illegal entrants. The rest came by air with valid visas and applied for protection here.

Does that not validate what I said about coming her legally and applying on arrival (if one is genuine)

The only reason someone would choose to come illegally is because they would not make the grade or they have something to hide.

The trip by air is cheaper than a smuggler, quicker and very safe.
Remember those that bring their wife and kids by sea are putting them at risk as well.
TBC

Bronwyn,

Banjo said'They...have threatened the lives of their kids"

True. I understand this was done on a number of occasions but, since you mentioned it, the Children Overboard inquiry was shown a video where a man is shown holding a child over the side of the boat. No responsible parent would do such a thing, to risk his childs life.

The NT police investigation into the boat explosion states clearly that the act was deliberate and what could not be determined was who actually did it.

By the way, if any of the 78 Tamils have been assesed as refugees, by the UNHCR. Then, looking at the figures, it is almost a garrantee that they would pass assesment in Aus easily. Why would any such person pay more to a smuggler when he can fly here legally, apply for protection and be free in the community while being assesed.

Horus,
Finally got some figures only for the year 2007-8 which states that 46% of Protection applicants were successfull, by those who entered legally and made the applications. So I think we can say about 50% to allow for variables. None of the top ten were from English speaking countries. I have no argument about those that enter legally and are granted refugee status. I am angry that we continue to be taken for mugs by the illegals.

Horus: "An analogy: ... does it make you less sympathetic"

I agree. But this isn't about sympathy. You are arguing they aren't refugees. Whether you or I have sympathy for them has nothing to do with whether they are refugees. That is defined by various US resolutions.

Horus: "followed by a lot of emotive claptrap"

The sentences following were simple facts. Unadorned facts aren't emotive claptrap. An example of emotive claptrap is calling simple facts emotive claptrap.

Horus: "How credible is it that BOTH can find absolutely not escape the others persecution on the whole island of Sri Lanka?"

As it happens I know some Sri Lankan's. From what I could tell, they were scared of both sides, and it was not obvious who was going win. I believe there worried about themselves or their families becoming collateral damage.

Horus: "show me ... the evidence that contradicted my summary?"

Para 94: Where, therefore, an applicant alleges fear of persecution in relation to the country of his nationality, it should be established that he does in fact possess the nationality of that country.

Horus: "What a joke –the reality is if we have no place to return them to, we get stuck with them."

Yep. At least that bit seems to have sunk in. Think of it this way Horus. We have done the equivalent of putting up one of those "kid safety house" signs http://www.afp.gov.au/act/crime_prevention/safety_house_program.html As a consequence, now any kid who claims he is in trouble can run into our house. We put the sign out Horus. Don't blame the kid for using it - or even for choosing the nicest looking house.

Bronwyn: "there are definitely a number who’ve been there now for around twelve months."

That throws a different light on it. Looks like the Pacific solution has morphed into the Indian solution, pretty much unchanged.

R Stuart ,
“ But this isn't about sympathy ... Whether you or I have sympathy for them has nothing to do with whether they are refugees”

But surely it must RStuart , since that is the only thing left.

We have looked at your UN resolution(s) and found them to be more honoured in the breach than the observance.How did that para 94 go again , oh yes, if the claimants couldn’t verify their country of origin they were NOT entitled to refugee status.Yet we found in OZ, lack of evidence of origin had no bearing on the claimants right of residency . Since one of our chief problems is not being able to send back those whose origins cannot be traced. Then we looked at the second aspect, the need to establish a well founded fear of persecution – but on close examination it became pretty clear that in most cases no such thing could be established –the claimants word was all we had . [ is it because we are downunder that everything seems to operate arse-about in OZ – with the onus being on us to prove otherwise?] Then we tried the needs test, as in, they’re people desperately seeking sanctuary, and that couldn’t be sustained either, as they were found to be hold-up in someone else’s vessel, at someone else’s expense, bargaining over four or five star destinations.

So what is left – only your feeling of sympathy –surely sympathy must be the mysterious unknown force bonding you to these people
[ It’s like looking for dark matter !]

Unless!...you have a financial motive.
Just between you and me RStuart, , you’re not connected with a people smugglers ring are you?

Bronwyn’s comment & CJ s endorsement that she & RStuart were “holding their own” quite well, motivated me to do a study :

Example 1
RStuart starts:
“The UNHCR guidelines … in the end, if they can't prove they only have citizen ship in some hellhole or other they can’t return to, they won’t be accepted as refugees . It is a UNHCR requirement. To put it another way, THE CONTENTION THAT THE UNHCR DEMANDS WE ACCEPT ALL ANONYMOUS PEOPLE AS REFUGEES IS JUST ABSURB .” [ 8 November 2009 11:15:04 AM]

( shades of Paul Keating “it is the L.A.W!” -- note the tone of confidence!)

Then it is pointed out to RStuart –that many of our problems arise from us not being able to return people, because we can’t establish their country of origin.So, what does he do –an 180 degree turn!

“ Think of it this way Horus. We have done the equivalent of …putting up one of those "kid safety house" signs …As a consequence, now ANY KID WHO CLAIMS HE IS IN TROUBLE CAN RUN INTO OUR HOUSE. We put the sign out Horus. Don't blame the kid for using it - or even for choosing the nicest looking house” [ November 2009 10:17:28 PM]

Doh! he had just finished telling us – there was limited access –now he’s telling us it’s open-doors to all and sundry .

Now that is an example of sound argument?

Continued below

Example 2
RStuart again:
i) Horus : Asks (if its so bad in Sri Lanka ) “Why are the vast majority of Tamils continuing to live [there], are they just cowards/fools?” [ 7 November 2009 11:39:50 PM]

ii) RStuart :Responds [indigantly] “Cowards? 100,000 were killed during the conflict. Fools? They were rounded up and put in camps at gun point”. [8 November 2009 9:57:32]

(note he doesn’t attempt to address why the majority have stayed put --rather seeks to sidetrack the argument by implying slander /insensitivity )

iii) Horus : (that is ) “emotive claptrap" and repeats the question: if things are so bad –why are the majority sitting put. [ November 2009 1:34:24 PM]


iv) R Stuart: The sentences following were simple facts. Unadorned facts aren't emotive claptrap. An example of emotive claptrap is calling simple facts emotive claptrap. [8 November 2009 10:17:28 PM]
What facts? –It’s a safe bet the majority of Tamils have not been incarcerated or shot ---he has merely played the emotive game!
……………………………………………………

This is Bronwyn handling the challenge that there is a sizable disparity between UN & OZ processing ;

Yabby
<< ... I'll rub the post from Franklin under your nose once again ... >>
Franklin posts the same old discredited references in every thread. He's had each of his two arguments soundly rebutted many times over, but he's so stuck in his own little time warp that he keeps trotting them out regardless. No thinking person would take a scrap of notice.
[Bronwyn, Friday, 6 November 2009 11:54:11 PM]

Where is her argument ?
She merely says its bunkum – apparently her saying so is enough !

All I can say is –if CJ Morgan thinks this is them hold their own –he must have been holding his own for too long

*he must have been holding his own for too long*

Lol Horus, you have CJ all figured out :)

I noted today, that Alex the poor Sri Lankan asylum seeker,
has paid a price for his exposure on international tv. He's
had to come clean and admit that he has a criminal record
in Canada, was in jail there and was eventually expelled.
So now he decided to try his luck in Australia, it seems.

Under our laws, with no documents to prove his real name,
he would have simply had to sign a form to say that he
had no criminal record, thats good enough for Aus.

Rstuart does make one valid point. Its us who are the
suckers, they are simply pushing their self interest
to the max and we let them get away with it.

Our bleating hearts make sure of it.

Horus - you're raving.

Yabby - typically puerile response.

I know I'm on track when you guys are babbling about me and engaging in schoolboy humour. It keeps you from being really nasty to others with thinner skins than mine.

Do keep it up.

Britians special envoy to Sri Lanka quote:

'We take the view that it is safe to return people, including Tamils, to Sri Lanka,'' Mr Browne said.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/sri-lanka-deal-aimed-at-smugglers-20091109-i5d6.html

What I though all along, war over long ago. Genocide claims from extremists website that are easy to debunk as mythical and people called Alex.

I could not believe some claims made here against many countries, so terribly colonial..oooh those savages type of rhehtoric. So insanely arrogant worse than the yanks.

TheMissus

Thanks for that link it was most interesting reading.

CJ Morgan: "Horus - you're raving."

I read this and thought "oh here CJ goes again, attacking the person and not the issue". But when I went back and read your replies Horus - he is right. Remarkably Horus "raving" is a fairly objective summary of what you have written. (Apologies, CJ.) In your 3 posts, all I see is wild accusations like "Just between you and me RStuart, you’re not connected with a people smugglers ring are you?" and logic like "It’s a safe bet the majority of Tamils have not been incarcerated or shot" - ergo they are cowards.

I can't see the point of engaging you further Horus. My goal here was to show how the facts were being distorted to suite some political viewpoint, but you have out classed me completely. I could not do a better job showing that in your case, no matter how long I worked at it.

TheMissus: "What I though all along, war over long ago."

The victory was declared on 18 May 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/18/tamil-tigers-killed-sri-lanka But for the Tamils the war didn't end then, as in they didn't just return to their homes and to go peacefully about their business. Rather the government then forced the Tamils into camps, stating they wanted to weed out Tamil supporters. Since foreigners were expelled we won't know what this "weeding out" process entailed for a while yet - particularly for the weeds, but in terms of refugees streaming out of the country probably worth noting the rounded up Tamils didn't know what fate awaited them in their own country either.

You are right on one thing - the war is winding down. I imagine within a year or so, with the resumption of a free access and free reporting we will get a clear picture of what conditions are like there. With luck, they will be as harmless as you are making our here and the refugees can be repatriated in confidence.

It is clear we can't be confident now however, yet you seem very keen on forcing them home regardless.

Yabby: "Under our laws, with no documents to prove his real name, he would have simply had to sign a form to say that he had no criminal record, thats good enough for Aus."

The problem with this assertion Yabby is you provide no evidence it has actually happened on a regular basis. This would not be so much of an issue if you hadn't shown such propensity here for gilding the lily.

For what it is worth, Paul Sheehan faces the same problem. Now that I have come to doubt his figures, his statement:

"Those found not to be in need of protection withheld all cooperation for return to their countries of residence and filed appeal after appeal. In the end the government took the soft option and most were granted protection"

has a fair chance of just being another case of Paul seizing on a single atypical case to further his political agenda. And as I said to Shadow, we are discussing practical outcomes here, aren't we? If so one off bureaucratic mistakes in implementing the law aren't particularly relevant to the discussion.

In any case, before I would put the weight on Paul's assertion you say it deserves, I would have to see evidence that it is in fact an endemic problem in our handling of refugee claims. If it is, you have made a fairly strong point to support your contention we are all being taken for suckers.

rstuart

During LTTE occupation of the north anyone who politically opposed thier views was disposed of so very important to weed out LTTE. These camps are a process of post war procedure. We had them in Iraq, Germany I read had them for 10 years following the end of that conflict. Add to that the de-mining process I can see it as necessary. In fact I cannot find any official objection to the them. The basis of criticism has really been about the conditions of one of the camps, just one.

However criticism was unrealistic, a lot of support from the Tamil disaspora for LTTE and anti- GOSL propoganda. I did read some Tamils on the ground state the diaspora are too far disconnected from what is happening on the ground and only making things worse. One Tamil from Melbourne even stated that all Tamils from the north under 35 have the mindset of the LTTE. Silly claims only serve to heighten tensions with Sinhalese thinking the Tamils are giving them a bad name overseas.

It is a very difficult process for any government and our ignorant expectations and biased views will result in governments closing the door to foreign journalists. Especially a country with China as a sponsor, does not really need our approval or our tut tuts.

I do not recall The Australian journalist going into Iraqi screening camps, do you?

If we had on the other hand congratulated the Sri Lankans and appreciated the issues they faced and made offers of assistance with co-operative measures I feel the Tamils would be better off today.

Add to that the political games with India, US and EU not happy with the chess type manoeuvre of China, Iran, Pakistan et al support for GOSL and the strategic port in vital shipping lanes for China then easy to see how Tamils have become a pawns in political propoganda. Read the actual charges against GOSL and we have done worse crimes ourselves. No wonder they prefer the west to stay away, can hardly blame them.

Rstuart, perhaps you missed this post, on one of the Bartlett
threads:

*Come on Mr Bartlett, enough of your sophistry. Consider form 'C': Application for a Protection
(Class XA) Visa (or the current form) and the declaration which must be signed by the applicant. The
applicant arrives in Australia with no identification and may have altered his appearance markedly.
He is then asked to complete the paperwork and gets to the declaration with its attachments: 'I have
never been convicted of a crime or any offence in any country except as shown in Schedule A'.'I have
not been involved in war crimes or crimes against humanity'.'I do not have any spent convictions
under any spent convictions legislation in any country or any convictions on my police record'.and
on and on it goes. Are we expected to believe that at the last hurdle the applicant will in any way
harm his chances of being granted refugee status by making a full and frank confession?

Even question 50 in Form 'C' should be enough to cause immigration officials to be circumspect: "You
are expected to provide documentary evidence of your identity, nationality and/or citizenship. If
you cannot do so, and cannot provide a reasonable explanation of why you cannot, this may lead to
doubts about the veracity of your claimed identity, nationality and/or citizenship." The arrival of
groups of people all of whom have no identification should cause our officials to vet each
application with great care. However the onus is now on immigration officials to establish, within
90 days, reasons to reject an application. Most clear thinking Australians know that boat people
have read the people smuggler's handbook "How to fool the wantwits in Australia" so a very high
percentage of boat people have a successful outcome. They are running rings around us.

Yes Mr Bartlett we do have immigration legislation but pre-dating that is the Australian
Constitution which sees our elected leaders vested with the power to act in our interests.
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 5 November 2009 1:23:31 PM *

I maybe proven wrong but I find it incredible that the appropriate department wouldn't be run basic checks through the embassies in the country of supposed origin, Interpol checks etc. That and *if* “Alex” had actually had been accepted as an asylum seeker and permitted to stay are both issues of the application of the regs NOT policy settings.

I think much of the conversation does the experience, skill of the departmental interviewers a great disservice by defining them as dumb paper pushers. When in most cases the opposite it true.
I don't care what system that is implemented if it involves people there will be oops.
The important point, is what happens next.

Arguing by exceptions, extremes (the absence of one extreme automatically = the opposite extreme) and or confusing regs application with policy is unrealistic and poor reasoning.

I find it disingenuous of some of the posters to claim they just want orderly application for entrance to Aust. Especially when in many cases the same posters have in previous posts expressed low level prejudices to Asians, Muslims or Immigration etc. Some seem not to remember their own previous utterances. To me if it walks and quacks like a duck regularly, then good chance it is a flamin' duck.

In the case of the original posed question CJ is factually correct, phrased differently GY and SM have both said or clearly implied and confirmed by the oppositions behaviour that it doesn't have to have a policy, their job is to criticise the Government. (low profile)

Negative? U bet because negatively works best and always has.

NB For the classical minded refer Marc Anthony's "Friends Romans Countrymen Lend me your ears" speech In Julius Caesar.... "for the good a man does is interred in his bones but the wrong.......".

Discussions are pointless if 'objectivity' isn't the primary feature it is then merely gain saying for saturation purposes. “Tell a lie often enough and it will be seen as truth”.

Examinator,

>>I think much of the conversation does the experience, skill of the departmental interviewers a great disservice by defining them as dumb paper pushers. When in most cases the opposite it true. I don't care what system that is implemented if it involves people there will be oops.<<

I agree that the department has many able staff. The problem that arises is that there are a finite amount of them - so they can only put so much effort into discovering the true nature of an asylum seeker's claim. (I reckon the number in the Department also dictates how many refugees they let in every year.) Another problem is the sheer diversity of asylum seekers and their circumstances ensure there are plenty of blind spots in the Government's discovery process, despite the best efforts of their officers.

So the real problem is the size of the task versus the resources on hand to do it.

I for one would be really annoyed if Sri Lankans are granted refugee status. It is probably very true they will suffer from inequality, though that shoe was on the other foot when Sinhalese were the servants and the Tamils the masters. However inequality is not "well founded grounds of persecution", otherwise I have claims to be a refugee..sign me up!

Even England is not recognising they have any grounds and are deporting them and they started this war with their playing one race against another.

RobP,

Fair point.

The Missus,
I think you may be confusing a few terms "asylum seeker" is a person who fears for their life or persecution etc.

I would be careful about using the UK as a standard for us. They have their internal politics and short comings. I for one, want this country make up it's own mind about what is 'our' view of the correct interpretation. Not simply follow the leader in a race to the bottom

RStuart,
“I can't see the point of engaging you further Horus”
What a refreshing break that will be!
Still, I’ll keep commenting on your weenies & whoppers –though my points will probably go over your head, like most other things seem to do.

Comment 1
Re : “For what it is worth, Paul Sheehan faces the same problem. Now that I have come to doubt his figures, his statement:
‘Those found not to be in need of protection withheld all cooperation for return to their countries of residence and filed appeal after appeal. In the end the government took the soft option and most were granted protection’"

There are many sources that back up Paul Sheehan, how about Gerry Hand:
“Former Immigration Minister Gerry Hand was a member of the ALP Left and proud to be known as a bleeding heart on immigration. Yet even he was moved to fury by the unscrupulousness of some immigration lawyers who advised their clients to plead refugee status. Hand said the lawyers tactic was to delay each stage of their application to almost the last legally-permitted day, and then agitate for their client to be released because the government had taken too long over the case.”
[Overloading Australia –Mark O’Connor & William J Lines]

TBC

Comment 2
Re "In any case, before I would put the weight on Paul's assertion you say it deserves, I would have to see evidence that it is in fact an endemic problem in our handling of refugee claims. If it is, you have made a fairly strong point to support your contention we are all being taken for suckers”

How very Sherlock Holmes of you!( though, I suspect Mr Watson might be more your style)
I’ll give you a little pointer, have a chat to Andrew Bartlett he knows all about delaying tactics like flag pole climbing, sown lips & hunger strikes –but he sees it as all trauma induced ( i.e. all our fault) . For real evidence of how big we have been suckered, visit some of the certified and accepted refugees –after they have settled in –please make an appointment as they might otherwise be back in the old country visiting friends and relations.

Comment 3
Re: “But for the Tamils the war didn't end then, as in they didn't just return to their homes and to go peacefully about their business. Rather the government then forced the Tamils into camps”

Again you seem to have a hard time distinguishing between the concepts of SOME & ALL.
They are two different concepts . Are you honestly wanting us to believe that ALL Tamils were locked-up
Surely not, even you couldn’t be that naïve!.

Comment 4
Re: “You are right on one thing - the war is winding down. I imagine within a year or so…. With luck, they will be as harmless as you are making our here and the refugees can be repatriated in confidence”

LOL
Even if it was certified peaceful; and blissful by Mother Teresa ( or closer to your heart Ban-Ki Moon) . There ain’t no way known that any of the refugees who are given residence in OZ will be repatriated.
( You think geting then off the Oceanic Viking is hard-its nothing compared to repatriating them from first world OZ to second or third world Sri Lanka)
LOL

Examinator

The UNHCR has repatriated Tamils to Sri Lanka, though on a small scale expected to increase as the camps are wound down. So not only the UK. The expectation is that the camps will be cleared within a few months. The reasons not to repatriate large numbers is more for logistical reasons rather than "fear from persecution".

The cost involved in processing people who really have no basis to claim asylum is not justified. The cost if we do have a different standard and allow then refugee status is huge. Not only in terms of supporting the view that we are "soft" and therefore promoting offshore processing so that UNHCR criteria is used but also the bitterness the originating country would view ours. Norway is already high on the nose with Sri Lankans. Governments need to assess diplomatic fallout as well when making these decisions. It essentially dilutes the refugee cause and hence the growing lack of support.

We keep hearing about the UN convention but some are demanding far, far more than what our obligations actually are.

If people want a good overview of the asylum situation have a read of: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9668 on today's OLO main page.

Some of the more salient points are that less than half a percent of migrants to this country in the last two years came here by boat, there were more than 600,000 migrants in that time and, of them, 47,000 are visa overstayers (with only 131 of them in detention). With 600,000 migrants coming here each year, the Immigraton Department must just be looking at most claims and saying, "near enough is good enough, you're in". This kind of debunks the idea put on this thread that just because they have documents, we know all we need to about them.

As the author of the article concludes: "Australia’s immigration and population policies are riddled with inconsistency, long-term folly and inhumanity." Too true. We, as a nation, need to take a step back, have a look at the big picture and restore the overall balance.

Yabby: "perhaps you missed this post, on one of the Bartlett threads"

No Yabby, I didn't miss it. It hinges on the fact that the DIC only has 90 days to process a claim. This isn't a law - it is just a benchmark the DIC has set itself. It is not one they meet in difficult claims. 12 months is closer to the norm. Indeed, if Bronwyn has said some have already been held for over 12 months on Christmas Island.

As far as I can tell your quoted text is just another case of careful selection of facts to give a distorted view of what is actually going on. In particular, Sage provided no evidence that the DIC actually does regularly fail in its duty to get its assessments right. We know it does on occasion of course - like when an Afghan man was assessed to not be a refugee, and on being repatriated was cut up and thrown in a well. Note I am not saying Sage did provide enough examples. Its far worse than that - he waffled on for ages, yet didn't provide a single concrete example of what he apparently claims happens regularly.

TheMissus: "It is probably very true they will suffer from inequality"

Economic hardship is specifically excluded in the UNHCR. Read their handbook if you doubt it - I posted a link to it above. If it wasn't we would of had waves of Untouchables here ages ago.

That should have been: "With *300,000* migrants coming here each year...", not the 600,000 I quoted.

rstuart. I know it is excluded, just that some feel fear of persecution has a whole new meaning in our new nanny state world.

RobP, I read the article, it goes on about the 78, missing the point
entirely. Principle is at stake in that case, that is the issue.

Do we reward blackmail with permanent residency? Do we send another
ship out, when a boat sinks, only to risk more blackmail? Govt
policy should be about certain principles, its not a chook raffle.

Rstuart, the DIC is hardly going to advertise, when it gets it
wrong. Horus makes a valid point. How many of previously accepted
asylum seekers, now fly home for a visit? It would be interesting
for somebody to check that one out with figures.

The single Afghan thrown down a well, is quoted over and over again.
1 single individual. You miss the big picture here. 31'000 Iranians
die in traffic accidents each year, 100'000 Americans are shot
each year. By rights we should accept them all for living in
such dangerous places!

Sage's post highlighted the weaknesses in the system extremely well

>>Do we reward blackmail with permanent residency? Do we send another
ship out, when a boat sinks, only to risk more blackmail? Govt
policy should be about certain principles, its not a chook raffle.<<

Yabby,

That assumes that blackmail is going on. When people are truly fleeing, blackmail is NOT on their mind. But, that's the job of the Immigration Department to figure out.

Speaking of missing the point, Yabby, how can you be so sure that people arriving here on plane are better migrants than those coming by boat, which is what our policy is implicitly saying? Why demonise one type of people but not the other? That's one of the major issues being raised here. That's an issue you've completely glossed over to date.

Most visa overstayers are tourists who had no intention of staying permanently, and roughly 4000 p.a. apply for refuge.

Similarily, while only about 40 boats have arrived in the 2 years of Labor, he neglects to mention that nearly all of them have arrived in the last few months.

Crispin Hull who decries the media distortion has no problem with distorting the facts himself. I suppose you can suspend morality as long as it is in a good cause.

Yabby,

In Canada there were 8,600 requests for travel documents by Tamils awaiting refugee status claims for travel home. Not even granted refugee status, just pending cases in one year alone.

Many quote fear as the reason there is objection to boat arrival by Australians. They do not see perhaps they are the ones taken in by fear propoganda whipped up regarding the conditions and risks in other countries. I do actually believe some fears of aslyum seekers are from manufactured claims rather than real dangers. Especially when they have been in the north that had been ethnically cleansed. They would only hear stories of what happens outside without any real experience. So they may feel a great sense of fear but whether it is justified is highly debateable and not helped by spreading of propoganda as some self proclaimed "humane" people do.

The other sense is that people would only take such risk for real fear of persection rather than the pursuit of money. I spent a number of years on the US border and I can assure you the desire for money is a far, far greater pull than personal safety.

*That assumes that blackmail is going on.*

RobP, of course its blackmail! They refuse to get off the frigging
boat, unless its in Australia! I thought they were concerned about
their lives being saved, apparently not.

People who come here by plane, generally have a visa, even for
a holiday. They also have a return ticket. We know who they are.
We can send them back on the next plane, if we have to. Not so
with somebody who has thrown away their documents.

That makes processing much easier and cost effective, in comparison
to the little joke called the boat trade, where one moment we
say we'll grant them asylum, then fight them off with sticks.

Take the case of "Alex". Had he sailed here, thrown away his
papers and not appeared on tv for all to recognise, he probably
would have been granted residency here. For unless he tripped
up in his interview, he would not even have to mention having
been in jail in Canada, but just sign a form. Not so if he'd
flown here, we could check his ID.

If you are a crim and want to come to Aus, the boat trade is the
way to go, for obvious reasons.