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