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.