Ludwig,
Quote. "So she really does need to now prove her genuineness by expanding the policy and dealing with the other main facet of asylum-seeking – fly-in visa overstayers. If she did that before the election, it would go a long way towards alleviating fears that she is just acting cynically in the lead-up to an election".

Dear-o-dear. You are the most experienced poster on OLO so I never imagined that you would need explanation about the alleged 50,000 overstayers spin. It has been told many, many times.

Firstly the 50,000 figure is NOT an annual figure but a static figure. In other words there are about 50,000 overstayers here at any given time. Most are tourists who have decided to stay a bit longer and then leave on their own volition and are replaced by other overstayers. They cost us nothing and are still spending money and adding to our economy. Not that many either when you consider the number of tourists we get.

I have forgotten the actual figures but it is all there on the DIAC website.

Now there is a few that arrive with valid visa and apply for asylum and since they are legal entrants we do not detain them while they are being processed. Their acceptance rate is low (about 20% I think) and if refused they have to leave. We can deport them, if necessary, because we have their bona fide details. The 50,000 a year figure is simply incorrect and put around by those supporting the 'illegals' as a strawman.

There is another much smaller group that arrive,by air, without a valid visa and they are promptly sent back to their departure point at the airlines expense.

They major difference with the boat arrivals is that they destroy they identifacion and their countries will not take them back unless we can positively identify them, so we allow them in. That is why they are prepared to pay smugglers far more than the cost to fly here.

Blue Cross, Australia should certainly be having more of an input into refugee issues in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka through our formal offshore refugee programs or by way of assistance with UN efforts.

But we would then need to assess the veracity of claims for asylum in those countries compared to many others.

I think that we should be bringing in about 25 000 of the most needy people as part of our immigration program per annum while helping many others to rebuild their lives in their home countries where possible. But I can’t see that many Afghanis or Sri Lankans would make the cut.

There effectively IS a queue or a waiting line. If some Afghanis or Sri Lankans are found to be amongst the most needy of refugees, then they should be positioned in the line according to need, with regular reassessments of priorities, as the factors affecting their plight are likely to prone to change.

In other words, we need to assist and assess them on the same basis as all the others that we should be assisting, within our formal refugee and immigration program…while striving to close down onshore asylum seeking entirely.

I don’t think Australia should be burdened with extra responsibility for refugeeism in Afghanistan as the result of our participation in the war there. We are afterall trying to do the right thing for the Afghani people in dealing with the Taliban as well as addressing the terrorism issue. We should be taking up more responsibility than we have to date, but not to the extent of it being disproportionately greater than in other refugee trouble-spots.

Blue Cross wrote;
>Belly, could there be a link between our presence in Afghanistan, and
>the flood of their citizens to here?

Actually, maybe you are right.
If the Taliban took over perhaps most of the population would decamp.
Certainly most of the women would want to leave.

It might well explain Pakistan's attitude to the Taliban.
All the more reason to pull up the drawbridge and have a think about it
while we rest the population from the impact, both financial and social,
of high immigration rates.

There is no way the earth can support the present population in the
standard of living we all so desire.
It seems impossible that people will solve this dilemma ourselves and
as someone said "Nature Bats Last !"

enter stage 'left' (?) a comment that adds to this debate from the ABC Drum page

"The demonisation of "people smugglers" is another example of the degradation of political language in the asylum seeker debate, which George Orwell so memorably described as "the defence of the indefensible." It is amusing to see politicians from both major parties, who are ostensibly committed to free trade, condemn impoverished Indonesian fishermen for providing a service to those who so desperately desire it. Given that the vast majority of those arriving by boat are in fact genuine refugees fleeing brutality and persecution, Indonesian people-smugglers have most in common with Oskar Schindler or US abolitionists in the pre-Civil War underground railroad. But because the asylum seeker debate demands scapegoats, "people smugglers" provide an appropriate target for febrile phrases such as Kevin Rudd's "absolute scum of the earth".

Read the lot here: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2947371.htm

Belly,
Quote
"The idea is a good one do not write it off yet if not ET it will happen some other place.
It will cost a lot but voters want an end to these numbers.
Let those who say no consider the people sitting in camps being betrayed by these who seem to be able to buy a ticket on such boats"

Gee, What a change of heart you have!

I vividly recall you slamming the previous government for its inhumane treatment of the 'illegals' Now you support off shore processing.

So what was more humane and compassionate about Rudd's 'meet and greet' policy and his encouragement for these people to undertake a hazardous voyage, in which about 160 have drowned since he took office.

Now youe say Gillard's idea is a good one, that is completly hypocriticical to your former stance on off shore processing.

You may recall that the Nauru facility was closed down and Christmas Island was quite adewquate under the previous governments policy. It is only because of the encouragement to come is there a need now to find new facilities. I also recall this mob saying they would not bring them to the mainland, what a joke.

Remember the previous government did actually stop the boats from coming.

Banjo, thanks for the low-down on other forms of asylum-seeking and immigration law infringement. But I’m not quite sure what your issue is with my recent comments. Perhaps you are getting my comments mixed up with someone else’s?

I’ve never touted the 50 000 figure. I have never said that we have 50 000 visa overstayers per annum, let alone that we have 50 000 every year in a cumulative manner.

The issue is that we have a clear law that is being grossly violated in an ongoing manner. It is an infringement of our immigration policy just as surely as onshore asylum seeking is. It needs to be tightened up.

If it is indeed not costing us anything and is actually bringing us net economic benefits, then the law needs to be changed to allow it to continue, legally.

Whatever the approach, Gillard should deal with it, head-on and quickly. As I said previously, this would surely help alleviate the high degree of cynicism in the community that exists due to her action on only one small part of our immigration and asylum-seeking issue.

Maybe she should crack right down on visa overstayers and progressively replace them with up to 50 000 of the most needy refugees, in a one-off special program!?

What do you think we should do about visa overstayers Banjo?