I would be interested in people’s opinions whether the government should process refugee cases onshore or offshore?

The legal and policy background is this. Australia has signed the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. This means the government says it won’t send back a refugee to his home state against his will. It defines a refugee as someone who has “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons or race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”.

The effect of the Convention is to confer an advantage on people who apply inside Australia – “onshore” - for several reasons.

The definition of refugee is so wide, and the state of this world so bad, that every year there are more people in the world who want to get into Australia, and who satisfy the definition of refugee, than the population of Australia. So Australia limits the numbers of offshore applicants by imposing a quota for each different world region.

So if you apply OFFSHORE, you have to satisfy the definition of refugee, AND then it’s a lottery to get in.

But if you apply ONSHORE, you only have to satisfy the definition of refugee. If you do, it’s unlawful for the government to reject your application for a protection visa (provided you pass the health and character requirements). And the courts will stop the executive from disobeying this law, as part of our constitutional principles that no-one is above the law including, and especially, the executive arm of government.

This is the underlying reason for so many asylum-seekers coming by boat.

An argument for onshore processing is that these people are doing no more than taking the government at their word.

An argument for offshore processing is that it denies asylum-seekers the unequal advantage of applying onshore.

The other option is to withdraw from the Convention altogether. This would remove the obligation to accept onshore applicants, but leave full power to decide however many of whatever kind of asylum-seekers on whatever terms the gumment decided.

What do you think?

And assuming withdrawing from the Convention wasn't an option?

When you have a bad law it is time to change it. Even Gillard might become popular, if she withdrew from this Convention.

None of these dreadful people should ever be allowed to set foot on Australian soil.

The source of the problem is not the convention, but is Canberra's kow-towing to Jakarta especially ever since Paul Keating and the creation of the "Indonesia Institute". The boat arrivals are part of a penalty we pay for being dishonest at the United Nations about our neighbour.

If we were honest we would have helped compel Indonesia towards enough respect for human rights within its borders so that the refugees would seek its protection and would not have legal grounds for claiming that Australia was their first safe port of call.

Instead of being honest, in 1949-1950 our silence allowed Sukarno to crush the United States of Indonesia and expand his Republic to occupy the other fifteen states of the USI, in 1962 we supported a US gold grab as we supported a UN Trusteeship agreement that was kept secret from the public so the Americans and Indonesia could share the spoils of West Papua, in 1965 we remained silent as General Suharto slaughtered half a million or more potential Sukarno supporters, in 1969 we remained silent as the UN exercised a cover-up of the 1962 trusteeship agreement, in 1975 we remained impassive as Indonesia invaded East Timor so Conoco-Phillips could grab the Portugal Oil project, then in the 1980s and early 1990s we alleged Indonesia had sovereignty of East Timor, and last year Bob Carr declared Indonesia has sovereignty of West Papua.

Throughout the sixty year history Churches have been burnt down and Christian populations have had to live in fear or flee for their lives from the Indonesian majority, and anybody who speaks against state policies has been arrested or found dead on a flight to Amsterdam.

If you want to impede the refugee flow, I suggest Canberra help the UN improve conditions in other territories by being honest at the General Assembly and Security Council.

It will be interesting to see where we go once the money has run out.

Not if, but when!

funny world isn't it. I and others were sent to Indonesia to assassinate Sukarno. We got there into position and orders came not to do so...than Suharto had taken over and he was a "good guy"
It's all in the definition.

How about Mars?

I understand the Hilton in the City, is offering a good rate now ? They have an abundance of conference room, ideally suited for processing these refugees, with the attendent coffees and teas now available 24/7.

I dunno, there's nothing funny about any of this. Seemingly we're attached to this UN accord where we're obliged to take any and all refugees, that happen upon our territory. Yet, from my own understanding, it's just us and the Kiwis, are prepared to abide by this 'accord'.

Please tell me someone - I was always of the opinion that we, (Australia) actually controlled our sovereign borders, except it would seem, if someone proclaims or declares themselves to be a bona fide refugee ? Or have I got that wrong too?

Also I've heard it said, these folk plead for help and asylum from repression in their own country ? Ok, I can accept that. What country do they refer ? Many cast all manner of ID overboard, in an attempt to deceive or obfuscate Oz authorities from determining exactly where they're from, why ?

Please enlighten me - if these people are absolutely genuine refugees, escaping from a country where their very lives are threatened, we MUST, purely for compassionate and humanitarian reasons, take these people in. Why then, do some discard ALL methods of identification ?

"Yet, from my own understanding, it's just us and the Kiwis, are prepared to abide by this 'accord'."

I think nearly all western countries are signatories. But the countries that the refugees pass through to get here, like Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia, aren't.

Thus unlike Australia they have done the *honest* thing in response to the refugees. They openly say "No, we don't accept and we won't accept". What Australia does is say on the one hand "yes", then on the other hand do a whole lot of legally dodgy things to try to squirm out of it, while *simultaneously* funding a whole industry of lawyers to take the government to court over it! Amazing, dumb, but true.

"Please tell me someone - I was always of the opinion that we, (Australia) actually controlled our sovereign borders, except it would seem, if someone proclaims or declares themselves to be a bona fide refugee ?"

"We" (translation: the government) does control our borders. By signing the Convention, they agree that anyone who can get themselves over the line, even illegally, has the *right* not to be returned if they satisfy the definition of refugee. In addition, they give them free health care, free English classes, free legal representation, and of course an income free of the need to work, while they are being processed; and after, free social security.

Destruction of identity documents is legally irrelevant. The only question is whether they have well-founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason. The destruction of identity documents may indeed make their case *stronger* - if it evidences a negative relationship with the home state.

The ideal situation would be if Australia withdrew from the treaty.
Hasbeen is right, these men are despicable, a real man stays with his kin through thick and thin, he doesn't slink away like a cur when things get rough.
What kind of society is going to form in a country which is just everyone's plan B, where nobody subscribes to any common belief or set of principles?
Pat Buchanan just published and interesting article on this very topic:
Has the Bell Begun to Toll for China?
http://www.vdare.com/articles/has-the-bell-begun-to-toll-for-china

Oh by the way, don't laugh at that quip about the Hilton. The reality is not all that different. The feds have NO IDEA how to do something economically. Last year I went to two of these detention centres in Australia's north. The MONEY just dripping out of these places is unbelievable. The cost in barbed wire alone is gob-smacking but then inside, they've got everything that opens and shuts with TVs, and aircon, and every kind of class and activity and sport, internet of course, gardens. They have cleaning staff to do all the cleaning and cooking and everything - no need to lift a finger. If they do, it gives them credits with which to buy tobacco. I have interviewed refugees, who have been flown from Christmas Island to Darwin, from Darwin to Curtin, from Curtin to Villawood, and 6 months later, still haven't made their application, let alone been interviewed by the department.

One guy, a 55 year old illiterate shepherd from the backblocks of Afghanistan, had 10 children - 2 boys, and 8 girls.

"Oh you have so many children!" I said.

"Only two." he replied.

Read it and weep.

* * *

But what I'm trying to find out is, assuming both Labor and Liberals continue with the Convention which seems likely, do you have a preference whether they are processed onshore or offshore?

Good evening JARDINE K JARDINE...

I must be truthful I'm not particularly acquainted with the legal inferences associated with this 'Refugee Corporation' (might it be a listed Company ?). Reading your response you obviously have a sound knowledge of the protocols associated with this entire activity.

Before I address your original enquiry, I mentioned earlier this practice of shedding any and all means of identification whilst enroute here. I believe you said it was 'legally irrelevant', or similar words ? To me, this practice is 'calculated to deceive', (one of the 'criminal proofs of fraud) to deceive the Australian authorities in their attempts to emphatically identify that individual ?

I do accept, that deceptive practice in isolation, has little bearing on the question; '..is this individual a defined 'Refugee'..' ? Other than perhaps, it does go to the question of character ? If a query were to arise '...is this individual, a fit and proper person to be admitted as a permanent resident of Australia...' ? But as you quite correctly point out, in itself, it has no legal bearing on the persons status as a bona fide refugee ?

Your initial question '...process them here or, off shore...' To my dull mind 'off shore' if possible ? However, J. K. J. shouldn't you first appraise the likes of Mr Julian BURNSIDE QC and ors. ? As it does appear, they have their docket full, of litigants who've been refused asylum here. Further, the quaint term 'pro bono publico' is no longer to be found within, either a law lexicon, or vocabulary of these Immigration lawyers, thanks to the magnanimity of the Oz Taxpayer.

This is one instance where the onus of proof should be placed upon the asylum seeker, to prove he is who he says he is. If they can not do so, they must be rejected.

They could be returned to Indonesia with a cheque, representing some of our next installment of aid, shackled to their neck. If Indonesia won't take them back, they no longer get the aid.

The truth is we are copping this invasion of trouble because letting them in is Labors way of buying some very smelly votes. Richardson showed the way. Nothing is bad if it buys Gillard & the rest of the slime some votes.

It seems like we are getting personal slanted views not answers.
Let me be clear,I am a bigot, I want not one to ever see our country, never land.
Now why?
Well lets drop our bigotry,very few Australians are content to see a growing expensive problem these folk bring.
And many of us under stand sitting waiting are good folk not Que jumping.
As a member and indeed lover of the ALP I know we got it wrong,bought this down on our heads.
But just the news Howard was gone, helped.
Equally Abbott and Gillard own this issue.
Gillards finger prints are all over this bringing them here,she has miss judged the thoughts of Australia, stop and stack them ten deep if needed off shore.
Can we too stop ignoring this truth?
IF we do not get harsh we will see the numbers grow.

Hi Jardine,

<< the countries that the refugees pass through… aren't [signatories]>>
Many Asia countries despite being NON-signatories can and do provide asylum, India providing asylum to THOUSANDS of Tamils being but one example. The real point is most DO NOT SEEK –DO NOT WANT “asylum”, in any place other than an affluent Western country.

And in the case of Africa—where nearly all countries ARE signatories – tens of thousands of asylum scammers STILL keep on rolling right through all those signatory countries till they hit an affluent European welfare state.

It is has little to do with seeking asylum, and much, much more to do with improving ones economic livelihood.

<< unlike Australia [Asian Countries] have done the *honest* thing >>
I grant you that by NOT foisting the refugee convention on their respective countries most Asian politicians are doing the right thing by their constituents.

<< What Australia does is say...>>
NO. "Australia" doesn't say that anything of the sort.
A few career minded politicians signed us up.
Just as they continue to sign us up to umpteen UN/IPCC conventions ---with little insight into their full implications.

<<.. while *simultaneously* funding a whole industry of lawyers to take the government to court over it! Amazing, dumb, but true.>>
Agreed --it's doubly dumb.We bend over backwards to provide scammers with the ways and means to bleed us.Some of them come back 3 and 4 times and each time they get free legal aid.(The only explanation that makes sense is it must be part of some govt legal industry stimulus package!)

<<Destruction of identity documents is legally irrelevant>>
Tell that one to the next traffic cop who asks for your license –I’ll bet he or she will be suitably impressed!(LOL)

<<they have well-founded fear of being persecuted....>>
Total BS!
They don’t need a well founded fear of anything. All they need is a well founded desire for our free health, education and housing services –and the ability to can tell a good sob story

PS: Are you the same Jardine K. Jardine I see regularly spruiking refugism on New Matilda?

o sung wu
I was probably putting it a big high say "legally irrelevant". It's legally relevant in that Immigration has to determine the guy's identity.

But the point is, even if he's thrown away his identity documents, the question to be determined is whether he has well-founded fear of persecution, not whether he's thrown away his ID documents. Sometimes someone can dispose of an identity document because they think, for example, that the Australian authorities would reject them if they knew they were in trouble with the police back home for reasons of political opinion, when in fact and in law, it actually makes their case stronger.

"a fit and proper person"
After they are determined to be a refugee, they still have to pass a character test. But this is looking for gross crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism, felonies, that kinda thing not common crimes nor throwing away an identity document when you were in fear of persecution and didn't understand the system you were entering.

Hasbeen
The onus of proof is, in practice, on the refugee. The applicant must prove. It's just that the *standard of proof* is the lowest known to Australian law. Much lower, for example, than the criminal standard "beyond reasonable doubt", or the civil standard "balance of probabilities". So if you think of an imaginary range from 0 to 100 percent, with "beyond reasonable doubt" being about 95 percent, and "balance of probabilities" at about 50 percent, the standard of proof in refugee law, "a real chance" is about 10 percent. This means that a refugee can satisfy the standard of proof even if there's reason to doubt his claim, or it's not probable.

<<The onus of proof is, in practice, on the refugee...>
Total and utter rubbish!

Well looks like if I was a politician my policy should be to withdraw from the Convention.

SPQR, no I'm not on New Matilda and I'm not spruiking refugeeism. I'm just asking whether people think we should withdraw, and if that's not an option, whether onshore or offshore.

(I personally believe Australia should withdraw from the Convention, stop funding the industry, reduce taxes by that amount, and then let in refugees on condition that they, or those who say we should accept them, must pay *all* the costs including processing and settlement and indemnity for crimes.)

I agree with what you say, especially about it's not "us" who's done it, it's the government. People keep saying "we" when what they mean is a tiny minority of fraudulent parasites in Cabinet. It's a bad habit but we (meaning people) should stop saying "we" (meaning the government).

I agree except one thing. How would you know whether their main motivation is economic or not? Have you asked them? I'm thinkin, no.

I can't see why everyone directs their ire at the refugees. If the Taliban had offered to cut your head off because they don't like the look of you, you wouldn't hang around either. There's no shortage of evidence of it happening. And you wouldn't try to migrate into Pakistan or Indonesia either, would you? Of course they're going to try to come here! It's not their fault the government has signed on to the Convention, accepts anyone with a plausible sob story, pays an industry of lawyers to suck on the public tit, pays for English classes and volleyball and internet, and pays them to live idle at everyone else's expense.

The last people entitled to complain are the Labor voters! That's exactly the same belief system as they apply to everything and everyone else!

Although Labor is perhaps worse, certainly the Libs are neck-deep in hypocrisy over this issue too.

O Sung Wu,
Contrary to what JKJ says, I believe the real reason the ilegals throw away their 'proof of identity' is because they are told by the smugglers, correctly, that if our authorities cannot verify their identity they cannot be sent home, because other countries will not accept persons unless verified as their citizens.

I do not think it matters where the illegals are processed, what is important is that we should raise the level of proof on to the applicant. I understand our levels are far lower than the UN when in fact they should be higher. We just take the easy way out and stamp approved on the application.

What really is required is NOT to give the illegals what they seek and they will stop coming. If necessary, withdraw from the convention and dump them on an island somewhere and tell the UN it is their responsibility. We are rightly seen as a very soft touch.

I trust the electorate will see this in September.

JKJ,
You said, "I can't see why everyone directs their ire at the refugees"
.
Firstly they are illegal entrants not refugees.

Secondly they get our ire because they are dishonest, deceitfull and con artists who deliberately set out to deceive our authorities.

They pay nmany times nore than the air fare to smugglers because they want to hide where they came from. We are being taken for fools, which is correct.

Any bona fide refugee, with the funds, would come via the front door. and put his case for proper assesment.

Jardine,
You certainly have some enlightened ideas –I’ll have reevaluate my initial (poor) assessment of you!

On our point of difference: <<How would you know whether their main motivation is economic or not? Have you asked them? I'm thinkin, no>>

Well as it turns out, yes, I have asked them…but more about that later

There is a simple (litmus) test: if someone was running for their lives wouldn’t you think they’d grab the first (IN FACT, ANY!) safe haven? If I felt so threatened I’d accept haven on ruddy South Georgia Island.

But our asylum scammers, it seems, are quite choosy:

Most pass through many countries prior to arriving in OZ –and yes, most of those countries may not be signatories to the convention, but as pointed out many still do offer safe haven – but very, very few of our asylum seeker even attempt to seek asylum in such countries.

Do you remember the Viking Princess fiasco. When we rescued asylum scammers off the coast of Java and they refused to disembark at an Indonesia port. Then they gave us list of acceptable countries –every one of them a western welfare state—and while our prime minister scurried around the world trying to meet their demands we served them up culturally appropriated meals! ( it wasn’t so serious it would be hilarious!)

And, are you aware that it is now coming to light that a good number of our Sri Lankan Tamils are actually coming to us from India. They’ve spent years in India –or in some cases they are simply Indian Tamils --but have now decided Oz offers greener pastures.

Now for “Did I ask them?”

I actually used to tutor “refugees”. And what got me thinking was one day, I was commiserating with one about the bad times in the old country when he smiled and said “The best thing that ever happen was that war because it gave me and my family and excuse to come to Australia”.I probed asking his experiences with the bad guys. He laughed and said they were no threat to him, he’d actually been back home since his arrival a number of times. I found once you establish sufficient rapport, i.e. established there was no threat to their residency or benefits—or no extra benefits to be had in maintaining the alibi --this was a common story.

I also recall meeting and marching and demonstrating with another (rather large) group of asylum scammers who talked openly about the need to have themselves photographed outside their country’s consulate, as it could be used a proof positive they hated their govt and needed protection –most later returned either on R&R –or even to work! for that (hated) foreign govt

Whenever I see the epithet of HASBEEN, I'm always drawn to his comments. This individual never seeks to mix his words, nor wraps his views in elaborate tissue paper. He says what he says, and like it or lump it ? I wish I had his courage, I really do. But I haven't...sadly.

As a former policeman...I know, I know, - you've all heard me say it often enough, ad nauseam ! This whole issue of illegal boat people, tricking or conning our weak government, is to me irrelevant.

What concerns me most, as well as many of my former POLICE colleagues, is this unchecked proliferation into Australia, (seemingly by stealth) of ISLAM ! Many illegals are Islamic, and whatever their motives are for coming here, they bring with them, their hardcore Islamic values and beliefs ! Beliefs that are substantially inconsistant with our traditional Australian values and our culture. Unfortunately, we are already able to see the inexorable emergence of some of these Medieval, Islamic practices, the likes of Sharia law ?

I can absolutely attest, there are suburbs, areas, streets, in and around Sydney and environs, that are awash with Islamic folk, some of which are almost deemed 'no go areas' for police, unless they enter in force.

If it were just merely another religion, nobody would care. But it's not ! And worse, theres NOBODY with the courage to 'speak out' lest we offend them ? You don't believe me ? Look around ? Even the Shock Jocks on talk back radio are scared to say anything against them ? Polititians, from ANY political party ? Nor anyone in Police command, the public service, the Church...NOBODY !

Except one (1) lonely, unknown Dutch polititian (I can't even remember his name?) is all ? We're a couragerous lot, we Aussies ?

In truth few Australians are content to see these folk come.
We get to hear and see the do gooders [how did we name something so bad do gooders?] tell us we are bigots.
But in truth we are not.
Our country,s welfare payments are an attractant, some will not fail to see.
A great world, so very mixed up, on one hand saying we need to increase the population.
Then warning ,rightly, of the very real dangers of doing just that.
It will not be easy, but Abbott will stop the boats, even if he has to use policy,s others failed to get by the senate.

But are they really 'do gooders'? All of the available evidence says otherwise. For instance only four 'asylum seekers' are in home care despite the generous government allowances available.

Yet one would have imagined that the 'do gooders' like the Greens who demand that the doors be thrown open to all comers would be bending over backwards to help them, especially where they can be paid to do so.

So the moral high ground claimed by Greens and other lefties is not deserved at all. Their morality is one that is inflicted on others: "You do what we say but don't expect us to do the same".

Where is the morality in encouraging a trade that results in so many lives lost at sea?

Where is the morality in throwing open the doors to all comers while steadfastly dishonoring (as 'breeders' and worse) and discouraging young Aussie couples who want to have children.

One could go on further, but the choice is clear, just throw the lying Greens and left out of Office ASAP. What a mistake it is to vote Greens into the Senate!

'evening there BELLY...

You're well I hope, I see you still in there sluggin' it out with those, who denigrate your beloved Labour Party. Matey, you well know my politics, but I'll always admire you for your loyalty to Labour. Though I'll always be a conservative, this batch of Liberals we've got in Canberra at the moment, sure worry me ?

They've proclaimed they'll turn the boats around...do you think ? They might initially, until some faceless, unknown office dweller, in the UN says '...hey you Aussies, you know you must abide by our convention...? So Mr Malcolm Turnbull will rush out into the surf and beckon them all to return, no doubt with Mrs Hansen-Hummmm hanging on tightly to his coat tails ?

Is there NO ONE in Canberra, who's got the courage to tell the UN, that it's -> -> WE -> -> US, -> -> the Aussies population, who decide who can enter our country ? Not some clerk in the United Nations. Why is it then, given public opinion, not one pollie in Canberra will tell them ?

ONTHEBEACH...

You mustn't cast aspersions against our beloved 'Greens' ? That bespoke Party (due recognition to Dr Robert Brown) who's provided us all with such political stability ? Occasioned to us, by the tireless efforts of that scholarly, erudite group of Senators, situated in Canberra. Who, from what I've been reliably informed, have a combined IQ of; two points above that of plant life ?

We owe so much to these these political gardeners ?

o sung wu,

It is simply astonishing that Bob Brown and his partner have not taken some 'asylum seekers' to their bosoms. Especially now that Bob is retired on the generous golden handshake 'the handshake keeps on giving' from those little hard working Aussies.

There are bugger all 'asylum seekers' placed in Tasmania, and seeing that Bob is so fond of 'diversity' he should walk the talk at home.

It is astonishing hypocrisy that Sarah Hyphenated, Christine Milne and other Greens who polish Senate seats are similarly unmoved to take an 'asylum seeker' in to give him housing with a home cooked meal.

State Greens too, why doesn't that rather tedious, headline hunting fool David Shoebridge do something productive for once and take an 'asylum seeker' into his abode? It would be better than him playing apprentice to the equally dull and predictable Lee Rhiannon (Brown). As if she would offer too.

Typical Greens, noses firmly in the public trough of taxpayers' money and thinking that there is plenty more where their $$'s came from.

Evening there ONTHEBEACH...

They're nothing but a waste of space these greens. And as you so precisely put it, they have their collective noses deep within the public purse, almost like a feeding frenzy ? Yet, please tell me, what exactly do they do to earn their money ? In any other private or public enterprise, they would need to justify themselves, justify the money we, the 'mug' Aussie taxpayer keeps paying them.

I really don't know my friend, I feel so impotent ? Yet, try as I might, there's not a damn thing that I can think off that any of us can do about it ? Save for registering our Vote (very carefully) in September.

Another thing that you're so very correct about - That 'cadaverous' looking Bob Brown, hitherto known as 'Lurch the Undertaker', still skulking in and around Tasmania, frightening animals and small children. Is still drawing a handsome 'package', again from us 'mug' taxpayers ! Yet all he's ever achieved in his political life is causing instability in Parliament, with his weird, unnatural, and odd protestations about all and nothing.

Yet he's still seen, this frightening, strangely odd, lanky corpse like figure, shuffling around the dark recesses of Hobart at night ? For heaven knows what, but it's sure very spooky ?.........and he was actually getting paid for it !

Still, if I were ever to come across him in the dead of night, I'd probably recoil in fright myself. Such is the frightening image he represents, a tableaux right out of a horror film ? A very spooky fellow is Bob ?

o sung wo I am grateful you and I are posting mates, with some times differing views.
I am afraid this issue has many sides, but to me at least it is one of the most important in this country.
While I brand myself bigot, it is not true.
You tell about Islam, it is not just my view, but fact, that belief system props up our dislike indeed stronger thoughts, about boat people/line jumpers.
Now two groups will insult me, the extremes such as Philip s and the other side?
Green left just well meaning others who see only the pain and not the out comes of open gate migration/invasion.
Yes Labor failed, but Abbott and the dreadful greens sit on their chests not allowing the only action that will end the boats.
Too good a tool for Abbott TOO MUCH TO ASK FROM A PROTEST PARTY LIKE THE IDIOT GREENS.
Islamic Migration, by any means, is a betrayal of future Australians,by both sides.
Any government with the guts to leave the UN over refugees and migration will be unbeatable.
Those about to charge at me, consider the filth who taunted family's of our dead soldiers in court this week.
Tell me of the good folk who tied down a man and flogged him!
Do not bother, you have no chance of convincing me we are not in danger from a primitive belief in a God that never existed.

G'day BELLY old man...

We may well have a wide divergence of opinions in our respective political philosophies, but that as we both know, is an essential component of our democracy.

However, all of us who like to regularly contribute to our beloved Forum, must share our collective concerns, about this burgeoning, unregulated flow of boat people coming into our country, who are seemingly 'stateless' ? What else can I possibly deduce ? Most arrive here without any acceptable form of identification ?

Many pass through the Republic of Indonesia ? And in order to gain entry, they MUST first traverse through Indonesian Immigration Control ? Obviously they possessed 'something' in which to identify themselves to the Indonesians ?

Yet, between Java and the first Australian Territory, they purposely and consciously cast aside, all and any means of identification ? Why ? What have they to hide ? Is it as ONTHEBEACH has suggested, if they possess ID, it makes it easier for Oz authorities to deport them ? Perhaps his right ? As an ex cop, this really concerns me, in fact this whole thing as a decided 'stink' about it ?

Moreover, I think the Oz public are being 'blindsided' by this government ? A government who were/are elected to protect us, and to safeguard our collective interests ?

All the while, we have these loony non-representational hacks, bleating away, tediously from the sidelines, and a small group of corporately clever lawyers, making a real commercial killing by defending the morally indefensible !

As a civilised humane society. We MUST give aid, and succur to all those legitimate people who are fleeing their respective countries, where they find themselves in perilous, life threatening circumstances. But we're not obliged to harbour those people who simply wish to have an 'express access' to our generous benevolence, by attempting to circumvent the United Nation's well defined queue.

The complex nature of humanitarian displacement calls
for a comprehensive policy response. There are no easy
answers or quick fixes.

I'm for onshore processing of refugees.

However if people don't like the laws of the land that
afford asylum-seekers appeal rights equal to those of
Australians. Change the laws. If people don't like the
international responsibility of being a signatory to the
UN Conventions on refugees - rip up the agreement.

Then our political leaders can do whatever they like
without being in violation of the very laws that they
are elected to uphold.

I am, and have been, a fan of Lexis from our first common thread here.
However I often, including now, hold a totally differing view.
I think, in fact believe I know, refugee rights come via the United Nations, and our signed agreement with that group.
Again, while understanding the sometimes, pain of boat people, we need to confront this truth, many more Australians than Lexi would like, would with draw from the UN if given a chance.
Politics is ,unfortunately, not about nice things, Howard won, unshakable, support by stopping the boats.
Labor, while unwisely getting it wrong, *in the eyes of most Australians* is held back in trying to fix the issue.
Malaysia is the answer, remember if the numbers concern some, they fail to see, regional solutions must give benefits to all involved.
Now Labor knows the publics mind, wants desperately to resolve this issue.
But has Abbott,s arms firmly around one leg, trying desperately to see the boats continue so he can stop them.
Greens on the other leg, as usual dragging Labor back feeding on ALP and stopping any true reforms.
We, Lexi please under stand, this is not my wish just fact,are leaving the stopping of these boats to Abbott, and no matter how harsh, he will do the majority's will! stop them.
While Labor, held back by Abbott,s negativity, still could fix it, if greens and fellow travelers could only see maths, numbers, are the driver of policy's not wishes.
Australians, find room to forgive us, in the same numbers that Howard had, want the boats stopped.
We too, yes even within Labor, think the term refugee has been stolen.
These folk are economic would be refugees.
Hurtful? but how else can Democracy survive if majority can not rule?

Good afternoon to you LEXI...

A very vexed question indeed ?

I notice you'd prefer 'On shore ' processing, while many other's prefer to have them processed 'off shore' (including myself). I get a sense from the 'tenor' of your thread, that you're profoundly sick of this entire issue ?

Further, I believe you are amongst those, who would prefer a more humane resolution to this entire question, rather than doggedly pursuing the existing policy of government ?

Therefore ipso facto, you may consider many of us who articulate taking a much harder line with these 'boat people', as card carrying 'rednecks'. Or at least, a inhumane and calloused lot ? In my case you may well be right, I don't know ?

I've carefully examined my own position on this topic :-

Providentially, I was very fortunate to have been born white, and in a very stable first world country like Australia. When there are many other people (millions I suspect), who haven't even got potable water, let alone sufficient, wholesome food ?

On balance, I'm an awfully selfish individual when I think about it ?The parable of the good Samaritan, teaches us all of the virtue of charity. I give a little to a particular charity, here in Oz. Bequested a portion of my estate to the RSPCA. Yet, in this very place (The Forum), I was appraised of the (commercial) misconduct, of some of those in that august Society ? So I don't know Lexi ?

By harbouring real concerns about many of these boat people, proves absolutely, that I'm rotten, inhumane, mean, and callous ? Am I ?

My real problem is, I have this sense (if you will), that something is NOT right about this entire issue ?

If I were to offend, or annoy anyone on this Forum, I can only hope it's not you LEXI. You're my moral 'template' if you like, that permits me to determine that 32 years + of policing hasn't removed the last vestiges of humanity from my thinking ?

Dear o sung wu and Belly,

Firstly a great big hug to you both.
And, no I don't think of either of you as "red-necks"
at all. Or anyone else for that matter.
I respect your opinions and fully understand
them. Of course I don't have the answers to this
complex issue. And as I stated earlier there are no
easy answers or quick fixes. I only know how very
expensive offshore processing has been for us - and
how detrimentally it has affected real refugees, women
and children included. Therefore I think that if nothing
else has worked in the past - why not try on-shore
processing?

This Labor MP has a different opinion. He is a strong supporter of off-shore processing. Who could doubt his credibility in that? See here,

<Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare will wed Louise Tran in December.

His future father-in-law's journey to Australia, via a processing centre in Thailand, and the scheme set up to cope with the post-war exodus from Vietnam was instrumental in persuading Mr Clare that offshore processing was humane and saved lives.

"Louise tells the story of her dad who, on their boat, they went to Thailand but he jumped out of the boat and swam to the shore and begged the people on the shore to let the boat come in," Mr Clare told The Daily Telegraph.

Having previously opposed the Howard government's Pacific Solution, Mr Clare now supports regional processing, similar to the arrangement of four decades ago that paved the way for the Tran family to find a new life in Australia.
..............
"I don't expect people smugglers to give up easily," he said.

"They make sometimes more than $1 million a boat so they are going to fight to keep that market.">

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/asylum-minister-jason-clare-to-wed-migrants-daughter-louise-tran/story-fndo317g-1226504242771

Belly,
I do not believe sending 800 to Malaysia will work, because they will simply go back to Indonesia, like they did before, and find another boat to Christmas Island.

So the Libs will not even try that route. I think TPVs, and no family reunion. No appeals and no legal aid (reserved for citizens only) No leting into community but ALL in detention.

Unfortunately, because they have seen how soft our government is, it will now take tougher measures than before to deter them. The smugglers are only providing a service, the illegals must get the message that they will gain nothing by coming here.

To use Richo's words, 'whatever it takes'. Withdraw from UN and/or set up detention on Macquarie Island, no mobile phones and no computers. Catorgoricly state they NEVER will get residency visa or family reunion. No docs=no processing. You see there are other measures we can take without doing a one sided deal with Malaysia.

How can greens/labor claim their schemes are humane when over 1000 have drowned.

Good evening to you - BELLY, LEXI, & ONTHEBEACH...

I couldn't agree with you more BELLY. I believe, LEXI always speaks with an immeasurable amount of commonsense ? And while it's true, occasionally I can't always agree with her position nor her opinion, nevertheless she does bring a stabilizing influence, together with a degree of normality to the table. And in doing so, allows me to settle down a bit and discontinue my 'chest thumping' rants !

ONTHEBEACH...

That's interesting the piece quoted from Mr Clare - isn't he the Attorney General, or is it, Minister for Justice ? Sorry I don't know ?

This whole question of processing boat people 'off shore' - does it really matter ? Don't they still retain normal appellant access to our Courts ? And didn't one Immigration Lawyer, mount a successful appeal to the full bench of the H.C. ? Sorry, I'm not sure. You seem to be far better acquainted with the jurisprudence associated with Immigration than me, O.T.B. ?

Another question mark, originally raised (in part) by my friend BELLY, if and when the Liberals do obtain government in September ? In their haste to prove themselves worthy of government, might not they institute some wide-ranging measures, to slow these 'people smugglers' down, and in doing so, again incur the wrath of the High Court, similar to that over the 'Malaysia Solution' ?

I still believe, that we've essentially surrendered the right to control, monitor, and regulate access over our sovereign borders. Simply because we were signatories to the UN Convention on Refugees ? I believe that covenant was structered primarily to accommodate the millions of displaced people of Europe, post WWll.

Now, it's both redundant and superfluous to our current predicament. Therefore should it not be comprehensively re-drafted to accommodate existing conditions. Without asking any signatory country to again forgo their right to protect their sovereign Borders.

As it is now, all we have to show, is almost a quarter million refugees, with a government continuing to ignore a self-perpetuating mess ?

Jardine, in your opening post, you wrote:

<< I would be interested in people’s opinions whether the government should process refugee cases onshore or offshore? >>

Offshore. Entirely. As per Howard’s policy.

We need to CLOSE DOWN onshore asylum seeking, regain complete control of our borders and complete control of our refugee programs.

There is confusing terminology here. We’ve got onshore and offshore processing and then we’ve got the entirely different onshore and offshore refugee categories.

Offshore refugees, which are a part of our formal immigration program, should be the ONLY source of refugees that we accommodate.

Onshore asylum seeking and hence onshore refugees, need to be relegated to history, as Howard did, and then Rudd undid!!

So we need offshore processing, as per Howard, as a fundamental part of the deterrence factor to people making the perilous journey to our shores…. or our waters.

Banjo I hope we are still mates.
But confirm we think very differently on some issues.
Give me a break on this one, hear me out then judge.
I am not pumping up my party,s rubber boat here, just showing my truth.
It costs these folk about $10.000 to get here.
Now stay calm, do not get as some do so heated they become just ranters.
REGIONAL SOLUTION!
Indonesia, and Malaysia, both want and end to boat people, do we agree?
In sending what is meant to be every arrival back.
Straight back, even if the figure becomes 80.000, surely you agree an end is in sight, they will stop coming?
Give me Banjo, an in depth way Abbott can or will stop them?
PLEASE consider, will he truly risk damaging what John Howard and previous Labor leaders started? our relation ship with these two country,s?
Mate swallow the anti Labor anger, do not let it blind you, it will not blind Abbott, once in government he WILL STOP THE BOATS, probably by using this plan.
It seems to be the only answer on the table.
Can my fellow posters contribute their answers if not this one, remember we are an international site, some will contribute, in the past have, the idea we sink them.
To those over seas readers we are not such a nation, but we are sick of being used by folk who on being settled here stay separate and at times demand we change to fit them.

Belly,
You and I agree on some issues and differ on some, to me that is normal. We agree on the dubious character of the 'illegals' and want them stopped but simply dissagree on how to go about that. You appear hell bent on the Malaysia scheme, while I can see major problems there.
As i understand it, the scheme was to allow the 800 to be free in Malaysia, not in detention, and that will not work. You are aware that some rejected here have tried again, some may even have tried more than twice. So, as they came to Malaysia firstly by air and paid to get to Indonesia, they will simply do that again, unless locked up.

This current government has simply given up any pretence of stopping the illegals since the court rulled on Malaysia. but as I pointed out there are other measure we can take that should convince them that there is nothing to gain by coming here.

I am angry and disgusted that this saga goes on and on and we keep paying out heaps and let these gate crashers in. Not to mention the lawyers cashing in. One could even claim the government wants the illegals to come and cares not if some die on the way.

I think you would also agree that this current government deserves to be tossed out on this issue alone. It has been a complete stuff up.

Belly.
I forgot to add that i do not think either Malaysia or Indonesia care much whether the illegls are stopped or not.

In fact it helps their economies as the illegals bring money into the country and must pay for accomodation and food, whilst waiting for a boat. Don't forget the fares and bribes given to get from Malaysia to Indonesia. How many in these countries are 'on the take'?

Bribery and corruption is rife throughout Asia, so many will not put much effort into stopping the trade.

Belly old mate, while Indonesia, and Malaysia continue aiding people smugglers in transiting any the garbage that washes up on their shores, to Oz as boat people, I'm afraid any relationship we have with these two countries is not worth a pinch of you know what.

That they are only too pleased to throw this rubbish at us is quite obvious.

Now here's an idea. These boat people must like boats. Lets give them their own boat city.

Every boat to arrive, after removing all fuels, should be towed, complete with passengers & crew, [shackled if necessary to prevent damage to the boats], to a point well out in the Indian Ocean. There they should be chained together, & LEFT. Kindness would require a few wind generators, & solar cells be left for them to install as they desire.

All future boats, their crews & passengers, to be added to the boat city.

Very soon they would have their own country, with a such huge rate of growth, they would probably become the envy of economists the world over. God, with any luck, many of our economists would see this success story, & immigrate to it. A huge double win for us, if ever there was one.

With any luck, soon the new crop of boat people would be calling for our navy to tow them there directly, with no need to come to Oz to pass "GO" on the way.

I reserve the movie rights, & expect to use Kevin Costner as adviser, with his experience in Water World. Who knows, perhaps truth is stranger than fiction.

I still want to know what is preventing the supporters of 'asylum seekers' from taking advantage of the feckless Gillard/Greens government's offer of home assistance $$.

Daily the 'Progressive' urgers for throwing open the doors to all comers claim that 'asylum seekers' are jolly nice young men (they are mainly young men!) who are superior in work ethic, morally too, to the Oz population -which is over 30% from non-English speaking background anyhow.

So, given that a very large rump of the population is recently arrived and given the claims of the 'Progressive' Left and Greens, why have only four 'asylum seekers' been placed in private homes?

Instead the 'asylum seekers' -a politically correct description if there ever was one- have to be placed in new rentals, hotels and in student accommodation at universities. That last mentioned was kept secret by the government until a serious sex crime was committed against a student. The Left were silent, but had a NRL footballer committed the same crime, the Left and feminists would be scorching the paint off the walls in protest.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/second-university-attack-bid/story-e6freuy9-1226587237381

The simple explanation is that the Left, who consider themselves morally superior to the average citizen, don't believe their own B.S. either. They want others to pay for their consciences (and poor judgement). As for the Greens, any protest is a good protest. Even if it results in more lives being lost at sea.

All
Interesting discussion.

o sung wu
"Don't they still retain normal appellant access to our Courts?"

No. Not if they apply offshore, that's the whole point. If they apply offshore and are rejected, even if they satisfy the definition of refugee, they have no legal recourse because being non-citizens, they have no right to live here. The Convention doesn't impose on signatories an obligation to accept refugees from anywhere in the world; it imposes an obligation on signatories not to send them back from inside the signatory country.

On the other hand if you satisfy the definition of refugee, apply *onshore* and are rejected, the courts will rectify the erroneous decision to reject, because the Convention gives you the right not to be sent back. The decision to reject is unlawful, because it's in breach of the Migration Act which incorporates the Convention into Australian law.

That's what's causing the entire issue. It's why they come by boat. Because once they get across the line into the migration zone, all of a sudden they've got a right for a factually meritorious case not to get rejected, which the courts will defend, even if they arrived illegally.

The problem isn't being caused by "people smugglers". It's being caused by the government.

Banjo, in telling us about corruption in those two country's you speak in terms belonging in the 1950,s.
As far as Australia is concerned.
We long ago joined in that practice, xenophobic of me but I think we learned that from past Migrations, we are as bent as any country.
You IMO are quite wrong, about those country,s not being concerned, not wanting an end to economic refugees.
They are part of a group seeking regional answers to this problem.
We MUST not become self defeating by not respecting other country,s rights, both these country,s have the ability in war to crush us.
Numbers, tell us that, but you and I talk in honesty of our concerns about the implications of some migration.
These country,s have the same right to be and are, concerned.
A post election look at how they are stopped will tell us who is right.

"A post election look at how they are stopped will tell us who is right"

It was working before Labor took government.

What Rudd and Gillard have done will make it infinitely tougher. Because there is an industry sprung up that employs an array of spivs, quick-witted lawyers and bureaucrats who earn their daily bread from spruiking free citizenship and providing services for illegal migrants. This industry is worth many millions every year.

Of course the electorate would prefer that the money is spent instead on such things as hospitals and so on. There is only a certain amount of money available from taxpayers. Wear your heart on your sleeve and dole millions out for benefits and legal appeals for illegal migrants by all means, but don't B.S. that the money appears by magic. It comes from taxpayers and it is diverted from other services the government is supposed to be providing.

Protest parties like the Greens don't care how it is to be paid for.

onthebeach, look, hopefully with an open mind.
No defense, Labor got it wrong, holds the blame for the MASSIVE INCREASE in boat arrivals.
But as a dam gives way one stone at a time , other things helped, one stone at a time.
Labor, perhaps it was Gillard, it bares her finger prints, a total muck up.
Said they would be fair, a stone falls more water comes.
Greens did what they do best, nothing of use, another stone, Abbott did his staring act, said no another stone.
Now today, right now, if Gillard, she does not have the wit, did every thing Howard did/Abbott says he will, it would not stop the boats.
But by just winning an election Abbott will slow the seepage, then by being far more crueler than Malaysia, stop them, thank you greens you sponsor Abbott,s cruelty.
Now IF Abbott wants to be part of the regional solution?
He will, not restricted by the dead and smelly breath of the greens hanging around his neck.
Talk to Malaysia.
Both party,s must put greens last on HTV.

How the feds spend our taxes:

Aussie floods
It is an election year so PM Julia Gillards deigned to tour the Bundaberg flood devastation and found it possible to give $1 million assistance. That will go to government salaries and to fixing government property. It is a cool $1M to advertising for Julia Gillard during her electioneering. So much for ethics.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-31/gillard-tours-bundaberg/4493706

'Asylum Seekers'
<The cost to the budget of staffing immigration detention facilities has ballooned by almost $650 million due to the large influx of asylum seekers over the past year, putting more pressure on the government to meet its surplus promise.

Combined with the $1.3 billion cost of increasing the annual humanitarian intake to 20,000 announced last week, the detention increase takes to almost $2 billion the extra costs to the budget unveiled in recent days.

Figures obtained by the Herald show that with 6803 people now in detention, the Immigration Department has had to reassess its contract with the private firm Serco, which staffs immigration detention facilities.>
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rising-cost-of-asylum-seekers-poses-threat-to-delivering-surplus-20120827-24wpy.html

Below is a link to tenders let by the main public agency managing 'asylum seekers'. Look at the large sums, because those millions are why there is an industry of advocates, lawyers and other leeches who benefit greatly and are ardent supporters of more 'asylum seekers' and more appeals for them.

https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.advancedsearch.keyword&keyword=immigration+AND+serco

It also explains why some are in favour of the over-enthusiastic immigration policies of the federal government. Quite simply, there is large money to be made from it.

Belly,

You think that Abbott will be 'cruel' if he can prevent people smugglers from risking the lives of more illegal migrants? It all comes down to values and priorities I suppose, but the charity of the Gillard/Greens government is never much in evidence at home.

In Queensland we still have families sharing housing with relatives because they cannot afford to fix their homes from the Brisbane floods two years ago. The small federal grant to the Qld govt was for repairing public utilities, public servant salaries (mainly) and some to fixing government assets.

Why don't you and your union mates (I say that kindly) have a look at the tenders I linked to above and start asking some pertinent questions about who really benefits from the taxpayers' money doled out in millions to 'asylum seekers' and for that matter to over-enthusiastic immigration policies?

Any wonder there is so much 'user pays' and additional taxes affecting the common working family. Labor isn't Labor. Labor policies continually serve and further advantage the intellectual elite that have the ears of career politicians. How lawyers must love Labor! That is where they get their big money from.

onthebeach
Very interesting articles and good post.

I am perhaps interesting in that I am one of the refugee industry which I agree is parasitic, but I am not an ardent supporters of current policy, more 'asylum seekers' or more appeals for them.

However I don’t blame the refugees for coming, and I don’t blame anyone who profits from it from profiting from it. They are merely accommodating themselves to the provisions of the State, which is the source of all the irrationality, valuational chaos and waste on a grand scale. I blame the State for it, including my part.

The reason is because a State is by definition that group in society claiming a legal monopoly over ultimate decision-making, and the use of force, for a particular territory. The State lives by its compulsory takings from its subject population. It is this territorial protection racket that is the essence of the State.

For myself, I would prefer full-time productive activity, farming. But on my farm, pretty much everything is illegal! Every area of activity is regulated, and all these regulations restrict my freedom to earn a living, as well as imposing huge monetary and time costs on me. For example I can’t cut the grass – illegal. Can’t cut trees – illegal. Plant crops and hundreds of roos eat ‘em – can’t shoot the roos – illegal. Can’t get rid of dogs and foxes eating my lambs without asking permission and paying tribute to political overlords. The costs of complying with a thousand regulations eats up months of productive time each year. Their pretence to serve a productive purpose is false – these are parasitic galls.

The restrictions which government places on everything, more and more make productive activity uneconomical. It’s not my fault that they have done that – I’m against it! The choice it gives to every tax-payer is “either just be exploited, or be exploited and try to re-coup some of your losses by parasitizing back”. That’s it.

By comparison making money as a refugee lawyer is easy, plus it’s indoors, clean ...

(cont.)

I get to fly around and stay in hotels, there's no heavy lifting, no dangerous machinery, no animals, no sh!t, no digging, no getting dirty with oil and dirt and blood producing things that people VOLUNTARILY pay for.

Easy. The government just steals the money from someone else. But look how the people of Australia accept it and think rejecting it is mad!

You yourself do it:
“[the money] is diverted from other services the government is supposed to be providing” and “the electorate would prefer that the money is spent instead on such things as hospitals and so on”.

So not even you acknowledge the principle that people have a right to the fruits of their labour! Not even you defended their right to their own property! You only thought of it in terms of their having no right to that money, and the government having a right to take it and spend it on someone else's arbitrary political opinion of what should be spent!

Obviously the electorate would MOST prefer the money not be taken from them in the first place, otherwise the State wouldn’t have to use threats and force to get the money! That’s ultimately the difference between how the State funds itself, it’s employees and agents and the detention centres, and how the PRODUCTIVE class get their funds by voluntary payments.

Of course
“Government is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” Bastiat.

The solution is not for the State to spend the money on hospitals for gossake, it’s to greatly reduce its thieving it on a false pretence to manage society!

The important point is, the solution is not just to abolish the whole refugee system, but to reduce taxes by that amount, repeal whole swathes of laws that rob Australians like me of our freedoms, reduce the size of government accordingly, and negate the State’s territorial coercive monopoly. Only those who want refugees should have to pay for them – voluntarily - and they should pay all the costs.

Jardine K. Jardine

If you go back through a few of my posts you will find that I am first a critic of big government. We now serve the State and any freedoms we have are concessions. The State is supposed to serve us, not the other was around. We have politicians who say that the measure of the worth of parliament is in its productivity - the number of new laws passed. Say what?!

"""
The restrictions which government places on everything, more and more make productive activity uneconomical. It’s not my fault that they have done that – I’m against it! The choice it gives to every tax-payer is “either just be exploited, or be exploited and try to re-coup some of your losses by parasitizing back”. That’s it.
"""

You do realize you're stealing from those less fortunate than yourself with the aid of thugs?
You're not taking it from the state, the state has no money only a big gun to put to the head of those who you steal from to pay you. And you justify it by saying there's no other choice?

Wonderful how our society is progressing eh? You're either with them or you're a sucker or a terrorist. I guess that's why they brought in the anti sedition laws.

And people laugh when I say our whole society is just made up of a bunch of despotic, tyrannical, parasites filling their own pockets at the expense of honest hard working Aussies.

Who is John Galt?

"You do realize you're stealing from those less fortunate than yourself with the aid of thugs?"

Yes I do, and I'm not saying I have no choice. The choice is to just be straight exploited with no corresponding benefit.

Although I see receipt of government handouts of any kind as parasitism I don't blame the people receiving them for the problem because I see that the very nature of the state - a monopoly of crime - compromises everyone who who is subject to it. The only principled choice anyone's got it is to be a slave in a totally one-sided interaction. Are you suggesting that's what I should do? That would leave all the statists living at everyone else's expense, and all the libertarians being exploited to pay for what they alone argue against.

*I* never argue in favour of political handouts including my own, but I constantly hear from Australians arguing for and assuming in favour of every kind of governmental interference in everything.

The solution is not to expect those legally entitled to something to not exercise their rights and take the benefit of entitlements that they are being mulcted to pay for. And I don't think Ayn Rand ever said that, by the way.

The solution is for people to stop believing and claiming that "we" are the State and the State represents us, and for the repeal both the interventions and the taxes that pay for them.