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.