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.