I am not sure what the law is at present, however, if there were a law in place whereby the skipper and crews of these boats faced severe jail terms for people smuggling, into Australian waters, surely this would be sufficient deterrent for others to reconsider thier actions.

Now I am no rocket scientist, however, I would assume it would be very difficult to arrive illegally on a boat, if there were no boat crews willing to risk imprisonment, as a consequence of their actions.

Has this option been considered?

rehctub,
this would be far too simple & effective a solution for the academic minds in Authority handle. They'd be at a total loss at something that works. A bit like the dog chasing the bus until the bus stops.

There's about as much cense in that as that bloke hitting his head on his way out.

Dear rehctub,

Your suggestion of stopping the boats won't work.

At present when the boats with the boat people
come into Australian waters the boat people are
taken off the boats, the boats are destroyed and
the crew are inprisoned.

This has been going on since the early days and hasn't
discouraged the boats from coming.

The people smugglers take the money from the refugees,
they hire a boat owner, from a poor fishing village,
the owner hires local villagers to work as the crew,
and the boats set sail. So the smuggler and the boat
owners get their money and don't pay the consequences.

It is the villagers who get punished. That is why you'll
never stop the boats by this method.

Admittedly, after a few years in prison, the crew is
sent back to Inonesia. In the meantime their families
get the benefit of their efforts. So while they sit in
prison, (under good Australian care) their families
live off the income they were given as crew members.
So it's a win/win situation for all concerned from
their point of view.

Butcher, you raise an important issue previously considered.

The following is an extract from a paper presented by Dr Michael Grewcock, who teaches criminal law at the University of NSW. He is the author of ‘Border Crimes: Australia’s war on illicit migrants’, published by the Institute of Criminology. It is a good read if you want to keep up with such issues.

>> This issue was highlighted in August 2010, when approximately 120 Indonesian ‘suspected people-smugglers’ detained without charge for periods of up to nine months at the Darwin immigration detention centre, engaged in widely publicised protests regarding the delays in the investigation of their cases.

Many of these people are believed to be boat crew. Their fate had been raised in March 2010 by President Yudhoyono, who was reportedly concerned that the 173 alleged smugglers then detained in Australia were predominantly fishermen and undeserving of mandatory five year prison sentences.

Imposing mandatory sentences on such people might be regarded by the major parties as a valuable ‘get tough’ strategy for domestic political purposes but it is difficult to see how it operates as a meaningful deterrent or a blow against ‘organised crime’.

Moreover, the sentencing regime comes at a significant financial cost, given that the courts will be required to sentence those detained currently to total of at least 648 years’ jail.

Some courts are also beginning to criticise the mandatory sentencing regime. In October 2009, two crew members from the SIEV 36, the boat that exploded off the north-west coast in April 2009, were sentenced in the Northern Territory Supreme Court. At the time of the explosion, Prime Minister Rudd described those involved as ‘the absolute scum of the earth.’

However, in sentencing the pair, Judge Mildren made it clear, that had he the choice, he would have imposed a much lesser sentence than required given their backgrounds as poorly educated fishermen from coastal towns, confronting economic hardship and offered work to crew a boat ...

cont'd

Cont'd ...

Unless we acknowledge that smuggling operates as an integral part of the refugee experience, and that undercutting it requires that governments facilitate entry, rather than engage in increasing elaborate border controls, refugees will continue to take risks, some smugglers will continue to make money and a lot of fishermen will serve mandatory prison sentences for no good purpose in Australian gaols. <<

rehctub

There are severe mandatory sentences for people smugglers. It's not clear that the courts will enforce them.

See:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-16/people-smugglers-court-challenge/2903440/?site=westernvic

Now if the aim is simply to stop the boats that's easy. Offer air tickets for the same price that people smugglers charge. Instead of risking your life in a leaky boat to get into an Australian detention facility you can travel in comfort.

(Drinks and lunch would be extra)

First we are not searching for a way to stop the boats.
We have two sides who think they, alone already know how its done.
And a warm and comfy group who do not want to stop them.
The former have said the laws we live by, that serve and protect us do not suit them.
So they fought against them in court and won.
That Victory of the few against the many will impact for years.
The Malaysian solution, not truly given a trial till that first plane took off taking its load there, never got a chance.
An opposition that sent boats back to Indonesia without protection , says it thinks it would fail.
And is not willing to risk it succeeding! think how its failure would benefit conservatives.
Labor, once so very much against the Pacific solution, sees its mistake, again back tracks.
But is held against that wall that appeared after the hight court order.
Australia, future Conservative government stands there too.
Abbott wants to side with Bob Brown! unthinkable!
What chance a future Conservative government if it needs support in the senate to pass this same bill , will it be given.
As our politicians reduce our country's ruling house t school yard fights I hope no chance.

Rehctub makes a sound point. If we are serious about immigration control, one of the things we have to do is impose heavy penalties on anyone who aids and abets the people smugglers.

What’s incredible is that we get boat load after boat load of illegals. Who tell us they have NO papers and NO way of verifying their country of origin. Yet, the boat crew that smuggled them to Australia --whom we are told originate from some poor isolated fishing villages --are always able to come up with papers that “prove” that though, they look and acting like 35 year olds, they’re actually only minors and therefore must be treated leniently.

<<Last week, a 15-year-old boy and two 16-year-olds, who were deemed adults on the basis of wrist X-rays, were released from Brisbane's high-security Arthur Gorrie jail. Their release came after revelations Australian Federal Police had ignored Immigration Department assessments and extracts of birth certificates showing the boys were under 18, contravening Federal Government policy to return home children apprehended on asylum seeker boats without charge>>
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/9711403/family-insists-that-people-smuggler-in-jail-is-a-boy/

Such a wimpy approach is never going to stop the boats.

Some people think the vast majority of asylum seekers do not arrive without documentation in an attempt to cheat the system.

Most boat arrivals found to be genuine (85 to 90%) arriving without documentation only delays legal status resolution, prolonging their stay in detention. So for a genuine asylum seeker, of which the majority of boat arrivals are, there is no incentive to arrive without documentation.

The Refugee Convention and the Australian Government recognise that asylum seekers are not to be punished for entry because asylum seekers generally have good cause. This is because asylum seekers will often have to flee quickly and are unable to obtain the necessary documentation before leaving; especially if that requires approaching the very government responsible for their persecution in the first place.

Sometimes, asylum seekers will destroy documentation because they fear being sent back home, or more typically - are instructed to do so by people smugglers.

It’s often argued that boat arrivals who leave from Indonesia intentionally deceive authorities by destroying their documentation because, having originally flown into the country, it’s assumed they must have had a passport and visa to board the flight. However, many asylum seekers obtain false documentation in order to gain entry into Indonesia by plane and, unable to seek adequate protection there, later escape to Australia by boat.

Furthermore, many asylum seekers initially land in Malaysia where people from Muslim countries are not required to obtain a visa. They then make their way to Indonesia before boarding a boat for Australia.

Non-Muslims, such as asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, are forced to bribe Malaysian immigration officials in order to gain entry into the country and - if they can escape detection and incarceration by authorities - will then attempt to make the dangerous journey to Australia by boat via Indonesia.

@Bonmot,
<<Some people think the vast majority of asylum seekers do not arrive without documentation in an attempt to cheat the system.>>
Yeah, well, those who thought that way would be the cluey ones!

Your post reads like something copied from one of the numerous “refugee” activist websites.

<<Most boat arrivals found to be genuine (85 to 90%) >>
The high level of their success has little to do with their genuineness, and a lot to do with our impotence.
As was pointed out recently on another thread.
We are finding among those * found to be genuine* persons who have committed “crimes against humanity” –how did they get through?
We are finding some that soon after settling in OZ return to their old country to fight for fundamentalist causes–clearly they were not attracted by our liberal-democratic values!
And, we are finding that many, many more -perhaps most- return to their old country on R&R –what were they running from?
Being passed by our processes is no measure of genuineness.

<<asylum seekers are not to be punished for entry because asylum seekers generally have good cause>>
The only *good cause* that most have is a desire for a more affluent lifestyle!

<< because asylum seekers will often have to flee quickly and are unable to obtain the necessary documentation before leaving;>>
Total rubbish , fairytale stuff!
Most of the Afghanis who have come by boat to OZ have not lived in Afghanistan for decades.
They have lived and worked in Pakistan alongside of hundreds of thousands of their ethnicity who’ve resided there for generations.

<<Non-Muslims, such as asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, are forced to bribe Malaysian immigration officials in order to gain entry into the country >>
If refuge is all they are seeking.There was no need to bribe their way into Malaysia.And no need to make the *dangerous journey* to OZ.
Straight across the water from Sri Lanka is Tamil Nadu, The land of the Tamils!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/beware-of-asylum-seekers-bearing-tales-of-woe/story-e6frg6zo-1225850659899

and what is more, at some stages of the year and tides it is but a short swim to India. Tall people can sometimes walk but no expensive boat is needed, a canoe is more than sufficient.

Only drawback is that the Border Security Force plays tough.

From Wikipedia:
"The Border Security Force (BSF) is a border patrol agency of the Government of India. Established on December 1, 1965, it is one of the Central Armed Police Forces. Its primary role is to guard India's international borders during peacetime and also prevent transnational crime. Like most paramilitary units of India, the BSF is under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is one of the many law enforcement agencies of India.

With a strength of 240,000 personnel in 186 battalions, including women battalions,it is one of the world's largest border patrol forces. The . . . ".

@ Is Mise,

Well, I surmise that either the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) is not that crash hot, or the Tamil "asylum seekers" are a wily lot --'cause some 100,000+ got past the BSF somewhere, somehow!

"The United Nations (UN) Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) reports Indian government statistics as indicating that, "as of 1 November 2010, there were more than 70,000 Sri Lankan refugees living in some 112 camps in Tamil Nadu and 32,467 living outside the camps" (UN 5 Jan. 2011)"
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,IND,,4d789ee22,0.html

that's only the ones that weren't shot.

The crews are already imprisoned for a minimum of 5-10 years.

The only method with a proven track record is to return to the Pacific solution which reduced the boats to a trickle and also complied with the UNHCR charter.

<<that's only the ones that weren't shot>>

That's why we need GUN CONTROL--both here and worldwide!

Typical 'dog-whistle' response from SPQR.

That's why we need GUN CONTROL--both here and worldwide!
SPQR,
NO & no again. What we need is moron & idiot control. So far as guns are concerned can you state just one instance where a gun went berserk just by itself & caused mayhem ? However,
I know of countless instances where some idiots not only picked up a gun & went ape but they were actually given guns by some irresponsible idiot bureaucrat megalomaniacs. The same goes for anything from picking up a rock to discharging a firearm.
As for stopping the boats all Australia has to do is to advertise that illegals will not get to set foot onto australian soil. Genuine refugees can't afford to pay people smugglers so that's one way of determining their status.

Individual,
I agree,this subject has been discussed here on OLO for years and it is the same thing. The bleeding hearts want more boats to come or even for us to supply the transport, while anyone that asseses the situation honestly knows that to stop the boats all that has to be done is not give the illegals what they want.

Processed as far away as possible, from the advocates, and no permanent residence and no family reunion and the boats will stop coming.

take no notice of those saying these are poor, desperate souls. That is rubbish, they are con merchants who get here by deceit and bribery, then deliberately lie to our officials. They are gate crashers pure and simple. We can detain them because they are illegal entrants.

Stopping the boats is easy, it just takes abit of guts.

“Genuine refugees can't afford to pay people smugglers so that's one way of determining their status.”

Individual,

Having access to money does not always protect you or your family from being persecuted. I don’t know how old you are but if you were around during the Cambodian Pol Pot regime, you should remember that a lot of people with money were just tortured and killed – including their families.

I know of an Iranian family who sold everything they owned to get out of the repressive and brutal regime they were subjected to – and still didn’t get every family member a seat on a boat - although they were considered quite well-off.

It may seem so simple to you indy, but being ‘cashed-up’ doesn’t guarantee you that refuge, and sometimes real sacrifices are made.

.

Banjo

Being an asylum seeker is not illegal.

However, I agree ... stop the boats (it's dangerous) and stop the illegal trade in people smuggling.

Brown's policy would see more boats to Christmas Island, then the asylum seekers would be processed on mainland Australia.

Abbott's policy would see more boats to Christmas Island, the asylum seekers would then be transported to Nauru for processing, and then a good proportion repatriated here.

Gillard's policy would curb the boats and send the asylum seekers back to Malaysia for processing. Refugees already processed will repatriated here.

We take little by comparative international standards.

Banjo,
You're of course correct that this is not a one size fits all situation. But to go back to the situation of stopping the boats we have to make up our mind via referendum. I suggest those in favour of boat arrivals being let into Australia pay a boat people support tax. Those against it can go on as they do now.
Any country must have the right to say who comes & goes or stays. That can certainly be a one size fits all scenario.
If people can hold a country at ransom via the UN then a country has the right to say to the UN you spend your money in our country to help the refugees instead of blowing billions on yourselves.
If we don't put a stop to this refugee business then I'm afraid we'll all become refugees sooner rather than later.

@ Individual,

<<SPQR,
NO & no again. What we need is moron & idiot control>>

Apologies, my previous comment was aimed purely at Is Mise (& his favorite cause), & is to be read in the context of Is Mise's preceding (baseless & ridiculous) quip "that's only the ones that weren't shot."

@ Bonmot
<< We take little by comparative international standards>>

Depends what you mean by "TAKE"!
Most countries that "TAKE" "asylum seekers" have no intention of giving them permanent residency.
Their intention is to grant *temporary sanctuary* then send them back home.
http://www.unhcr.org/4c657ec69.html

However, when OZ TAKES "asylum seekers" they're invariably here for good (or bad!).
And, they're invariably joined by their uncles, aunts & fifth cousins!

Compare apples with apples please --not apples with lemons!

Referenda are usually rigged by clever'What do you prefer?' questions, which are carefully and cunningly crafted to benefit the arugment of the powers that be. Cast your mind back to the referendum regarding this Nation divorcing itself from the Commonwealth, either answer would have benefit to the proponent.
NSB

bonnot,
Go do your homework.

Entry into Aus is unlawfull (read illegal) without a valid visa. This makes the boat people illegals. The only reason we can detain them (lock them up) is because they are illegal entrants. We cannot detain legal entrants. We have undertaken not to prosecute illegal entrants if they claim asylum.

That is quite simple.

Oh, the refugee convention states that asylum seekers must obey a countries laws.

The oposition has frustrations to be acted out at any cost, to Australia. A dangerous situation. There is no telling what Abbott and his tribe are willing to do. This puts Australia in a very awkward position. Maybe the greens would come to the party in exchange for gay configurations.

Banjo,

Excerpt, Chapter 3:

>> An asylum seeker is someone who is seeking international protection but who may not necessarily be found to be a refugee.

A refugee is someone who satisfies the grounds provided under the Refugees Convention.

There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.

[ Repeating, for Banjo’s edification: There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.

Ergo - it is not unlawful or illegal to be an asylum seeker ]

Irregular maritime arrivals (boat people) who are processed in Australia first have their claims considered (known as a refugee status determination or RSD) and, if found to be a refugee and subject to the Minister’s approval, are then eligible to apply for a Protection visa. <<

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/refugee/ref-hum-issues/pdf/refugee-humanitarian-issues-june11.pdf

Banjo, you obviously don’t practice what you preach - you just blow smoke.

Oh yeah, I agree with Minister Bowen (as you apparently do too) - if an asylum seeker breaks Australian Law while being assessed for refugee status, well - let's just say it doesn't help their prospects.

bonnet,
You had better check again.

All non citizens that enter Australia require a valid visa. It is unlawful to enter without a valid visa. That is purely and simply why the boat arrivals are illegal. Again that is the only reason we can detain them. We cannot, and have no desire to, detain persons with a valid visa.

Persons arriving by air without a proper visa are detained and returned to their place of departure ASAP, usually within 72 hours.If such persons apply for asylum they are detained until the application is processed.
Persons with a valid visa that apply for asylum are free to go about their business while their application is being processed.

It is all in the DIAC website.

All this has been made known here for years, but some advocates of the boat arrivals continue to claim, wrongly, that it is legal for them to arrive. It is just a ruse to make the illegals appear better than the shonks they are.

As an ALP member and activist my views on this issue will alway bring conflict.
These are those views.
This generation of boat people, unlike the Asian one in the 70,sand 80,s is unwelcome by more who matter.
All very well to speak of Labors platform.
Of the humanity issues.
We must however confront these truths.
John Howard retained government on this single issue.
Labor can find its self in opposition on this issue.
Again and again I hear the word refugee, but see fees as high as $20.000 paid, and an average of $10.000 to come here.
We the left of center saw two massive tragic events deaths at sea hundreds of them and pilloried Howard for them.
Labor has had one we know of.
Consider this, Greens voters are fixed not changing sides Labor is not going to win the next,maybe next two elections.
Conservatives will go very close to controlling the senate in a second double dissolution election.
They will force that election, we should have but lacked the guts, within a year of first taking office.
Malaysia had every chance o working/reducing Labors loss to come.
It is insanity! to stand forever on a minority position that can never win.
And as a result destroy the very thing you claim to defend.

Dear Banjo,

Not true.

The following website gives the correct answer to the
question, "Are asylum seekers illegal?":

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BN/sp/Asylumfacts.htm#_T0c299011016

SPQR said "Apologies, my previous comment was aimed purely at Is Mise (& his favorite cause), & is to be read in the context of Is Mise's preceding (baseless & ridiculous) quip "that's only the ones that weren't shot." ".

There is a lot of evidence that Tamil refugees have been shot trying to get to India from Sri Lanka as well as Tamil Nadu (Indian) fishermen being shot by the Sri Lankan Navy, possibly in mistake for Sri Lankan Tamils but more likely to deter them from helping the refugees. One of the reasons for SR Tamils undertaking the longer journey to Australia is that it is less hazardous as the SR Navy operates mostly in the Gulf of Manar and the Palk Strait (between India and Sri Lanka).

India has repeatedly protested against the actions of the Sri Lankan Navy and there have been confrontations at sea but, as yet, no battles.

Banjo,
(Psst! a whisper in your ear)

Lexi is up to her usual tricks. The publication she is pointing you to--is not some departmental report, or bipartisan govt study --it is by Janet Phillips (Social Policy Section) of Australian Policy online. A group supposedly set up to provide "RESEARCH AND RESOURCES IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST"! And from my reading of some of their other publications it tends to take a left-leaning view on most issues.

It can make has no special claim to authority. And it reads like another of the thousands of activist website question & answer briefs for activists.

'SN' above should read 'SL'.

Psst, calling all conspiracy theorists - OLO is where it's happening.

Lexi,
That paper is propaganda put out after the Rudd Government came to office and they were about introducing their softer (stupid) policy on the illegal boat people. This policy is what has caused the current problem for them.

Australian Law is that all non citizens must have a valid visa to enter the country legally.

Not to have a valid visa contravenes OUR LAW and no matter which way you put it that is an unlawfill act. i.e. illegal.

If what I say is not true, you may explain just how is it we can detain these persons if they have not contravened our law? Is the government acting outside our own law in detaining them? We also pack those without valid visas, that arrive by air, off back to where they came from. They are unlawfull arrivals that is why.

These 'unlawfull arrivals' are breaking OUR LAW, nobody elses. The refugee convention that we signed states that asylum seekers must obey our law. A potential asylum seeker cannot simply disregard any countries laws. Because we are very nice people we do not prosecute them if they claim asylum.

Banjo,

The link Lexi provided is an attempt at "sanitizing" the terminology.

"‘illegal immigrants’ are people who enter a country without meeting the legal requirements for entry (without a valid visa, for example)" These boat people are now called ‘unlawful non-citizens’ which means exactly the same thing.

This is a complete joke.

Lexi

The documents provided by the Department of Immigration and on the professional advice from their Counsel clearly state:

"There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa."

Your link (and the embedded references) reaffirms that fact.

It appears Banjo and his cheer-squad are either misrepresenting or misinterpreting what the Department of Immigration says and/or are very confused about the legislation.

For example, if you fly into Australia without a valid Visa, or in fact over-stay your time in Australia with a valid Visa - then yes, it is illegal and unlawful.

What this current band of naysayers are saying does not apply to asylum seekers arriving by the so called 'boats' – and it is patently obvious that none of these naysayers have read/understood the relevant documents, or are deliberately distorting and misrepresenting them.

This is not unusual. Tony Abbott, on a number of occasions, has sought and been given expert advice on various issues. Typically however, he has rejected their professional dissertation and counsel – deferring instead to saying whatever it takes to sway the public opinion to his own ideological ends, power and control of the masses.

In other words; rather than defer to Treasury economists, Immigration lawyers, or CSIRO scientists, etc – he makes up his own facts and spins them with aplomb to an electorate that wouldn’t know any better.

In another thread, I said that this type of behaviour is known as ‘cognitive dissonance’ – I am sure you know what this means and if not, you certainly have the resources to check the references. Unless of course you are part of the world wide conspiracy of librarians marching against the truth ;)

Dear bonmot,

No matter what anyone says or how they try to twist
things according to their own agenda - the Migration
Act and the law remains the same. Australia has
signed up to this law and is obligated in keeping it.
The law is the law - whether anyone likes
it or not. The Migration Act is what it is.
People can Google more than one site to get the full
details. The details don't change. Asylum seekers
are not illegal. People are entitled to seek asylum
in this country according to the Migration Act.

Anyway, I appreciate the fact that you're arguing from
an intelligent point of view, not an emotional, immature
one.

Bonnet,
You, and lexi, fail to answer the question. How can we lock up (detain) people if they have not committed an offence under our law?

The lawyers that prosecuted the Malaysian solution downfall would love to hear from you both. They could have all the 'illegals' released immediately. Maybe those lawyers are slow to comprehend the law.

It is the 'illegals' advocates that are falsely spinning the yarn that they are not breaking any law. The object being to portray these deceitfull con artists in a more favourable light.

We simply do not incarcerate innocent people. They are law breakers.

Both Governments, Labor and Liberal, lock these shonks up.

Lexi,
Your point depends on two things;
Is Christmas Island a designated "Port of Entry" ?
Do asylum seekers need a visa to arrive legally ?

If either of these items are true then they are illegal.

Banjo,

That's easy. Until such time as they are determined to be genuine refugees, they are "unlawful non citizens".

Asylum seekers do not have to have a Visa, under international law, those seeking asylum in this country have the right to be processed, if they, the asylum seekers, fail the processing then they are sent back from whence they came.
It is not for us to judge or justify these peoples' arrival, nor is it for us to say 'send them back'. Try walking in their shoes for a while. I am neither for nor against the arrivals, they are humans just like us.
It should not become an overdose of politics to deal with them, a little more humanity would go a long way, after all, we are all descended from boat people in this country, if it was good enough for us to qualify for entry, then if the asylum seekers are valid, then why shouldn't they. Too many people condemn that which they don't understand or don't want to understand.
NSB

“Bonnet, you, and lexi, fail to answer the question. How can we lock up (detain) people if they have not committed an offence under our law?”

I'll let your churlish and childlike slur on my OLO tag pass.

Australia can detain asylum seekers because that is what Australia can do under the law - since it was enacted.

They are detained so as to assess and process their application for refugee status.

As has been said: the law is the law and the Act is the Act – neither you nor your fellow travellers can alter that fact – despite all your efforts to the contrary.

I don't necessarily agree with the processes, but the law is the law.

.

NSB

Well said!

Bonnot,
Sorry, the mispelling of your name was a typo, which I did not notice until I went looking for what you were referring to.

Where your argument falls down is that we can assess and process those asylum seekers that have a valid visa, without locking them up.

The only reason we can lock the unlawful entrants up is because they have contravened our law by arriving illegally. Yes that is the law, OUR LAW.

Again I must say that the only way to stop the boats from coming is NOT to give those, that arrive illegally, what they seek. This means no permanent residence and no family reunion, and if necessary make them wait 10 years for processing, like Africa.

Dear bonmot and Noisy,

Here's a website from Amnesty International
that further clarifies Australia's obligations
under the law to which we are a signatory:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22616/

Banjo,

>> Where your argument falls down is that we can assess and process those asylum seekers that have a valid visa, without locking them up. <<

First of all, it is not my argument – it is what the Australian Government (present and preceding) can do under Australian law.

Next: yes, we can (assess and process those asylum seekers that have a valid visa, without locking them up) – but, NOT those asylum seekers arriving by boat because;

1. Under Australian Law, the government can (and does) detain all non-citizens who arrive by boat (irregular maritime arrivals) without a valid visa.

2. They are taken to Christmas Island and placed in immigration detention.

3. See, for example;

* Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, ‘Rudd Government committed to Christmas Island detention’ (Media Release, 18 August 2009)

* Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Processing Irregular Maritime Arrivals, Fact Sheet 75

4. This includes people who arrive by boat in excised offshore places, and people who arrive by boat on the Australian mainland

5. In 2001, the Migration Act was amended to designate a number of islands as ‘excised offshore places’. See Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 5(1) as amended

6. The vast majority of these arrivals are asylum seekers. A small number are crew members.

Look Banjo, you asked me to do my homework – I have, it’s all freely and easily accessable.
Please, do everyone the same courtesy by at least reading the Department’s relevant areas – it is not that hard, really.

If you can’t, or won’t, or have difficulty in comprehension – all I can assume is that you have added ‘confirmation bias’ to your ‘cognitive dissonance’.

As to stopping the boats http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4733#124793

I have nothing further to add.

Dear Lexi,
Thanks for the link, very informative, and I have to agree with the essay written.
We are being deluged over in the South West of W.A., hope you are a bit dryer. Fortunately, we are on high land, and the council has recently installed more drainage.
Good Night my Friend,
NSB

What would you do about the other 99% - coz it's sod all that come by boat - that come by plane?

And finally...How many illegal immigrants arrive as disguised lawn mower parts from China?

Bonnot,
Your one eyed and blinkered vision is unbelieveable.

You say. "1. Under Australian Law, the government can (and does) detain all non-citizens who arrive by boat (irregular maritime arrivals) without a valid visa.

2. They are taken to Christmas Island and placed in immigration detention."

This agrees with what I have said. To gain legal entry to Australia
all non citizens require a valid visa. If one does not have a valid visa that person is breaking our law and we can, and do, detain.

You can use all the different terminology that you like; irregular arrivals, unlawfull entrants, it still means the same thing. they are breaking our law and therefore it is illegal.

Don't you think the lawyers that had the Malaysian deal quashed would act against this if they could?

Why don't you conceed?

End of arguement

I think are jails are like hotels when compered to there's,then they get a free plane fare home.We cannot stop these boats?.Europe has a much bigger problem?.
It will be a much bigger world problem in a few years time,

Banjo,

This settles it. Not one of Lexi's lefty links but from:

Stewart Foster
Director
Public Affairs
DIMIA

Note the following key points he makes (we'll the Bonmot numbering system):

1) "It is not true that an asylum seeker cannot be an illegal entrant or indeed be an illegal immigrant. Nor is it pejorative to use the correct terms to describe an illegal entrant or illegal immigrant"

2)" In some quarters to the use of the words 'illegal' or 'unlawful' or 'unauthorised' to describe asylum seekers arriving without Australia's permission seems to have at its root vigorous attempts by some in the community to mislead the public into believing a myth that all unauthorised arrivals are asylum seekers and that all asylum seekers have a right to enter a country of choice without authority and therefore 'can never be illegal'. This is just not true. The reality is clear in international law and has been made crystal clear by the High Court of Australia."

3) "Neither asylum seekers, nor refugees have a right to enter, without authority, a country which is not their country of nationality"

4) "The use of the word 'illegal' or 'unlawful' to describe asylum seekers entering a country without authority is standard international practice, not least by signatory states to the Refugees Convention. This is because the Refugees Convention (Article 31) explicitly refers to the "illegal entry or presence" of refugees who arrive in the territory of a country "without authorisation"."

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters04/Press_Council_28_June.htm

It might be a good idea to keep a copy of the link. The subject is bound to come up again. Refugee advocates have such poor memories --when it suits their purpose!

Yep, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and now - motivational reasoning.

Oh yeah, typo you said, are you sure of that?
Homework for you:

b o n m o t ... 100 times :)

.

SPQR, regarding your 'cherry pick';

You quote-mine the head of Public Relations (spin doctor working for the Howard Government) who wrote that "Letter to the Editor".

Foster wrote it because an independent tribunal had just ruled that the term "illegal immigrant" was innacurate. Stewart Foster's day job was to deflect bad PR from the Department of Immigration.

In confirmation of your 'confirmation bias' (pun intended), you (intentionally) neglect the full story:

In June 2004, the Independent Australian Press Council ruled that The Sydney Morning Herald was wrong to use the term "illegal immigrant" to describe asylum seekers - banjo clasps his ears and behaves like an osterich at this point.

The Press Council (made of judges, academics and media representatives alike) listened to the evidence, weighed up both sides of the SMH story, and ultimately upheld the argument that it was wrong to describe asylum seekers as "illegal immigrants".

As a result: the Sydney Morning Herald acknowledged that "illegal immigrants" was an incorrect description for asylum seekers. Moreover, the paper conceded that it should have used the term "asylum seekers".

SPQR, you can find the judgement if you want, but you won't.

Foster's letter was written in response to the Independent Tribunal's finding. The finding was never appealed - which the Immigration Department could have (but didn't) - so the tribunal's finding still stands, to this day.

No subsequent court case, tribunal ruling, anything - else has disagreed with the findings of the Press Council, SPQR.

SPQR, choosing to quote a letter written by a PR guy whose job was to disagree with the ruling of the Press Council is either deliberate distortion, or uninformed misrepresentation - you do it well.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/who-can-you-trust-to-be-in-charge-snapshot-of-a-nation-losing-its-faith-20110926-1kto6.html
Please read the link.
Please find time to consider its contents.
Can any student or just interested by passer in politics not see the truth in it.
Note the story includes a claim, one I believe, that its figures are no different world wide.
I happen to blame the disharmony on todays politics, including an insistence, on migration/refugee in take that introduces disharmony.
And that seeds planted today, are going to grow in to huge weeds, future generations make thank us for much.
But not this.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/not-prejudiced-on-asylum-issue/story-e6frgd0x-1226147275922
It is and always has been true.
Some do not wish to read or even consider views that are other than those they hold.
The first link, post above, talks of an increasing divide and distrust in our country.
While should doubt that, we should understand it is us, not politicians, who own the blame for that.
Brown, and his increasingly shrieking crew, told us they had Australia on side.
Clearly not true now or ever.
Gillards crew, maybe till the day they invented the Malaysian solution, have got it wrong.
Tony Abbott, a street fighter, surely not for ever? uses this issue and this country as a football.
It has far too much usability for him to seek to resolve the issue.
We? why is it our fault?
Who else is to blame. politicians perform these weird dances to?
To try to convince us to vote for them.
It is us who should demand of them, a resolution .
A middle way, that facts such as this country's in take of 10% of refugee world wide intake should not be hidden from us.
That at some point politics should present us with compromises, the only outcome we can expect.
Not fixed positions that demand only one view is considered.
I think it sad that Bob Brown, Tony Abbott Gillard must squabble not compromise, the first two?
Worse than sad,and our fault.

"Lexi's Lefty links?"

Since when was Amnesty International a "Lefty
Link?"

And what exactly is a "Lefty Link?"
Is it the same as a "communist plot?"

Goodness me - what stunningly ignorant
remarks. They should be subsequently ignored.

Hi Lexi,

It seems to me that anything that remotely resembles a regard for fair-dealing between humans is these days regarded as "leftist".

Banjo, From my knowledge of other treaties I think you will find that
the ratified UNHCR treaty will over ride any other Australian law.

I think the problem is that people have forgotten what is a refugee.
A refugee is illustrated by those columns of walking people pushing
hand carts with all their possessions and being strafed by aircraft.

I have not heard of people scrambling onto boats in Indonesia and
being shot at by Indonesian troops. Have you ?

For them to claim to be refugees is an insult to those real refugees.

Sheeeesh ... now I've heard it all.

Lexi, that's good advice

Besides, the author of this thread went MIA after his initial post.

Bye

Dear Lexi & Belly,
Sadly, those who are incarcerated in Refugee camps are often treated like criminals, when in fact the only people who should be incarcerated are the illegal carriers of these desperate people. We had an incident last week (I think it was last week) whereby the refugees were beaten by the staff members of the "camp". These people are not the criminals, but they are vilified by the 'frightened few'.
God help us if the tables were turned, and we were the boat people.
Cheers my friends,
NSB

@Bonmot,

It may come as a surprise to you but press councils do NOT determine law.
So any *judgement* they might make has no legal bearing.

Their judgement(s) may impact on journalists in need of a style manual.
And it may give people like you a few jollies –tickling as it no doubt does your big brother tell-the-rest-what-to-think fantasies

But it means zilch to the rest of the community –the electorate who vote on laws.

So why-oh-why would DIMA or any other govt body bother to *appeal* the press councils ruling?

On the other hand. Stewart Foster's day job is to represent the Department of Immigration. & explain immigration law.
And he evidently did a pretty good job as his dissertation is still prominently displayed on the department’s website.