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.