All sides of politics ignore facts of asylum arrivals

David says:

06:43am | 14/10/09

I can see that in a few years we will be in a USA -Mexico situation .
The human tide from the near East will rise to tsunami proportions and we will be helpless .
Australia will be a different place in 200 years . MARK MY WORDS .

watty says:

06:43am | 14/10/09

“Regardless of their method of arrival” Not and never will be a policy of any country which have signed the 1951 U.N Refugee Convention.

Australia like the U.K seems to be a magnate for people trying to enter these countries without complying with their Immigration Acts.

Why do so many bypass Malaya,Singapore and Malaya anf head for Australia?
Is it because Australia is more lax on entry conditions and provides better social security benefits even visas for those who manage to land.?

Only 3% arrive by boat.With the increase in the number trying to enter and our annual intake og 180,000 the estimated ten thousand may not just be a scare tactic or figment of imagination.

Charles says:

07:02am | 14/10/09

What Claire Mallinson doesn’t realise is that those who arrive by plane at least have some documentation against which they can be tested to verify their claims.  Boat arrivals take pains to destroy theirs, which makes it much more difficult to determine whether they are genuine.

This puts those arriving by boat in a dubious position as to their truthfulness and for the reason for coming here.  Which, which unless they have been clued up by colleagues or refugee activists, usually turns out to be for economic reasons.

acker says:

07:22am | 14/10/09

We need to remain balanced and remember some asylum people are good people in an unfortunate situation but some others are also bad people

westie says:

07:24am | 14/10/09

“Amnesty International flatly rejects the assertion. . .”

Fair enough, they probably also flatly reject that the world is not flat.

But enough’s enough.  There are said to be between 22 million and 65 million refugees in the world, depending on which advocacy NGO is speaking.  Would the supporters of an open door policy please indicate just where in Australia we should place them?

The refugees we should be helping are those who have no wads of cash to pay people smugglers and who are truly desperate, not the illegal immigrants who now know that if they turn up on our doorstep, some bleeding hearts here will say “Oh, how touching!  Let them stay!”

Eric says:

07:37am | 14/10/09

I can remember when Amnesty International was a human rights organisation.

Now it’s just a left-wing political lobby group.

Terry says:

07:49am | 14/10/09

The Sri Lankin Government has warned Australian officials that Tamil tigers left over from their war are heading for Australia in boat loads. Here we have a Government hell bent on being popular and will give them tea and scones and a football when they arrive. This Government is crazy for popularity, and for Rudd to say he is being tough is a joke. The orchestrated phone call to the Indonesian President is spin, and now the Indonesian authorities yesterday have come out and said the Rudd phone call was not the reason they stopped that boat load of people. Australia has always been in contact and worked with other countries in our region regarding people smuggling.

iansand says:

07:51am | 14/10/09

Eric@8:37 How do the economics of accepting genuine refugees work?  Why is one policy “left wing”?  Have you thought about what you type? 

We have an international obligation to deal with asylum seekers according to a UN convention (and Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore do not).  The vast majority of asylum seekers are granted asylum.  Can someone explain why the method of arrival should play a part in determining whether a particular applicant is genuine?

Eric says:

08:02am | 14/10/09

Whoa iansand, whole lot of questions that have little to do with what I said in my comment.

The economics of accepting genuine refugees work by controlling the amount and type of refugees we allow to enter. Boat people seek to evade this control.

One policy is left wing, because it draws most of its support from left-wing people.

Of course I’ve thought about what I type. That’s why I’m right.

Australia is signatory to a 1948 convention on refugees which is now obsolete. We should renounce the convention.

The method of arrival is important, since rewarding illegal entry will result in our small country being overwhelmed with vast numbers of incompatible and undesirable immigrants.

eddie says:

08:07am | 14/10/09

yes david, in 200 years Australia will be a different place, there is a place for you on the Einstein factor, - “David, special subject the bloody obvious”
In 200 years david, I dont think you will be interested. In 200 years, with any luck most of the borders and religions that are causing our greif at present will have disolved, could we be that lucky. but I dont think I will be interested by then either.

Eric, I like to think of myself, politcally, as a Machiavellian Fascist but next you I am a bleeding heart socialist. You really are a twisted xenophobic mysogenist aren’t you.

iansand says:

08:11am | 14/10/09

Eric@9:02 This “One policy is left wing, because it draws most of its support from left-wing people” is what we call a non sequitur.

Wayne H says:

08:16am | 14/10/09

iansand says: 08:51am | 14/10/09,
We also have the right to except that asylum seekers come in via the front door. Their method of arrival if coming by boat is dangerous! What don’t you understand about that? I catch you sneaking around my back paddock and I will show you they way back home real quick. Bleeding hearts make more trouble in this world than anyone. I don’t think you are a bleeding heart but, just one very loyal labor man who will stick up for Kevy and his mob no matter what.

Elizabeth says:

08:18am | 14/10/09

I don’t think human rights are ‘obsolete’.

Allan says:

08:21am | 14/10/09

“Overwhelmed by incompatble and undesirable immigrants?”

2,000 people out of 22 million is 0.01%. I’d hardly call that overwhelmed. Even if it were 20,000 - that’s still only 0.1%. Bugger all.

But the important point is he inherent racism in that kind of comment. Incompatible and undesirable? How ridiculous. So you’re saying you’d have no problem if they were white? Australia truly is a racist country.

People complain that these refugees have money. Simply because you are persecuted doesn’t mean you stop having money. These families sell everything they own to send one of them to Australia to try and earn a living to support their family. Try putting yourselves in their shoes for 5 minutes.

These attitudes are just disgusting.

Wayne H says:

08:24am | 14/10/09

Elizabeth says: 09:18am | 14/10/09
I don’t think human rights are ‘obsolete’.

If I was you I would start worrying more about your rights that are being eroded daily.

Yon Toad says:

08:28am | 14/10/09

In all this blather she got one thing correct: All sides of politics INCLUDING hers ignore the facts of asylum arrivals.

DG says:

08:30am | 14/10/09

David - 07:43am | 14/10/09

We only have to look back 200 hundred years to see just how right you are. People forced out of their home country by the Government of the day, turning up in boats with little regard for the existing population (and looking for a better life*) and changing the country to be more like the place they left. People will move around, it’s been happening for tens of thousands of years since the first ‘humans’ migrated from Africa and took over the world.

* 200 years ago it was the noose or a boat to Australia, seems like very little has changed.

To the Original Post:

You are right about the UNHCR’s reports - but you must also consider 2 things. The UNHCR only looks at the cost (economic cost) and does not look at the other influences that some from this situation such as changing demographics in existing communities and social implications of such change. For example dumping 10,000 people in London wont make a huge difference, in Melbourne the change would be far more dramatic, even tho the financial burden may be no different. And secondly, the UNHCR’s express purpose is “to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees”. An honorable goal for sure, but if I were to read research published by an organisation that has a clear agenda, I would consider the purpose of the research and the reason for their focus and observations. there is nothing in the mission statement of the UNHCR that talks about the rights of a population that may be expected to accommodate refugees.

Now before I am taken out of context, I have not said that refugees should be held out of the country, nor have I said that we should open the gates. I make no statement with respect to the policy for refugees, simply that the reports of the UNHCR should be looked at in context and considered in that light.

IANSAND - 08:51am | 14/10/09
You make a good point. The method of arrival should not make affect their application. BUT how should one consider a person who has shown a willingness to break the laws of their new country when it was in their best interests? Should we disregard this clear indication that they intend only to be bound by the laws when it is in their best interests? There is a process in place by which one can lawfully apply to enter the country, and one which is unlawful. I dare say it makes all of the difference in the world. I appreciate that desperate times require desperate measures, but that does not absolve a person from responsibility for their actions - especially when there are lawful options available.

Do you wish to reward those who have demonstrated a willingness to break our laws for their own benefit, while those that obey the law are disadvantaged?

Michael says:

08:32am | 14/10/09

Ah yes its xenophobic to be opposed to the entry of people who lack documentation but can pony up large amounts of US dollars to get here, and just happen to be from the country that had the misfortune of seeing the invention of the suicide belt.

Jo says:

08:33am | 14/10/09

Great post Claire. The concept of boat people seems to terrify people. From reading these posts it seems there’s panic about being invaded by foreigners. Yet I think Claire’s point was that only a small minority of asylum seekers come into Australia by boat (“3.4 per cent of people who sought asylum in Australia in 2008 arrived by boat” ) and suddenly we have an “open door policy” (@westie). Obviously we have to be careful about national security but likening the desperate situation of asylum seekers to someone “sneaking around your back paddock” (@Wayne H) is pretty narrow minded.

RJB says:

08:36am | 14/10/09

Iansand,Your demi-god Rudd twice referred to these people yesterday as illegal immigrants. Either acquaint yourself with the definition, or direct your spray to the Prime imbecile.

hoofman says:

08:58am | 14/10/09

This issue always attracts unattractive comments from people who sound like they are spoiling for a fight. I’ll just take one point raised by RJB. If the boat people are illegal immigrants,  why are no charges ever laid against them? Answer: because they haven’t done anything illegal under Australian law by landing here and claiming asylum, and the government knows it, and so did the Howard government, whatever the rhetoric. Having said that, it’s fair enough for the government to find a reasonable way to discourage these boat arrivals, whatever their number.

Liz says:

09:02am | 14/10/09

Have we forgotten that most of us were refugees from a different part of the world, or descended from someone who was…war-torn Europe,the miseries of Britain, Ireland and a dozen other places.

June says:

09:04am | 14/10/09

Kevin Rudd is a christian and a compasionate man. He understands that these people need our help and should not be persecuted like Howard did. We have a big country that is rich, and we should welcome these people with open arms and save them from the persecution they get in their own countries.

iansand says:

09:04am | 14/10/09

I mistrust any politician who seeks my support by attempting to frighten me.  It is the antithesis of rational argument.  It is a pity that, as evidenced by so many comments here, the tactic works.

watty says:

09:06am | 14/10/09

I would suggest to all the warm and fuzzies who don’t care how migrants enter Australia that they should become personal sponsors of all those who attempt to arrive in Australia as what Rudd refers to as “illegal migrants”.

Provide housing and food and medical careuntil the migrant obtains work and can pay their own way.Otherwise they go through the normal procedures rquired of the othe 97%

Merian says:

09:20am | 14/10/09

Oh June PLEASE!  Kevin Rudd knows how to get votes and that is all he is doing!

watty says:

09:34am | 14/10/09

Sorry June but the “Christian and compassionate man” had a sudden angry outburst about stopping “illegal migrants” only yesterday.

Agreed we have a big country but like most settled Australians our new arrivals won’t venture much beyond our CBD’s which can’t cope for current populations.

Bitten says:

09:36am | 14/10/09

Running away from a problem does not solve the problem - who is going to address the problems in these nations if the citizens flee?

John A Neve says:

09:38am | 14/10/09

Eric,
“One policy is left wing, because it draws most of it’s support from left wing people”. Please tell Eric, how do yu define a “left wing” person? While you are at it, define a worker?
I would suggest terms such as “left wing”, worker, boss, have no real meaning in todays world. Private companies are few and far between. Public companies are the go, so there are no bosses, we are all workers.
That is why our political parties are a farce, who or what do they really represent? Eric, I await your response.

hoofman says:

09:46am | 14/10/09

Bitten says: ‘Running away from a problem does not solve the problem’ - so Bitten, who would be living in Australia today if everyone who lives here now, and their ancestors, had taken that attitude? And, if someone was coming at you with a knife, and you were unarmed, would you still be sure that running away couldn’t solve your problem?

David C says:

09:52am | 14/10/09

So let me get this straight we are against illegal immigration but for asylum seekers??
And why dont the Muslim boat people just stay in Indonesia?

H says:

09:59am | 14/10/09

Seems strange to me, man strange to me, don’t it seem strange to you? That country founded on immigration is so damn racist too - John Butler Trio

h says:

10:03am | 14/10/09

iansand, if its any comfort, the kind of people who comment on the internet are not usually a good sample of the australian population - and the kind of people who fall for the liberal racist card, are literally a dying breed

Terry says:

10:10am | 14/10/09

h, the Liberal racist card????? get back under your rock darling!

watty says:

10:16am | 14/10/09

I agree h
Now why did you feel the need to comment?

the"liberal"racvist card? Is that when Rudd refers to “illegal migrants”?

Jo says:

10:37am | 14/10/09

@Bitten: you clearly have no idea what horrors some people experience in their own countries. To take a boat across seas and risk death with all the uncertainty of actually getting into another country I think they have no choice but to run away from their problems. I think we should also remember that there actually aren’t that many people arriving on boats. They just seem to get the most coverage.

Dan says:

10:46am | 14/10/09

Michael;  “Ah yes its xenophobic to be opposed to the entry of people who lack documentation but can pony up large amounts of US dollars to get here, and just happen to be from the country that had the misfortune of seeing the invention of the suicide belt.” Did you not read one of the posts noting that just because people can ‘pony up large amounts’ of US dollars, doe NOT mean that they aren’t being persecuted! And as for coming from Sri Lanka, what, they don’t deserve asylum because some extremists invented suicide bombing? Considering the state that Sri Lanka, are you honestly suggesting that we shouldn’t take them? God, some people in this country are embarassing.

Oh, and David C, why can’t the ‘Muslim’boat people’ come here? Should we only take Christian refugees? Anyway, Indonesia is not signed up to the convention like we are.

h says:

10:47am | 14/10/09

Fair point, Watty, and I’m guessing when you ask why I need to comment you really mean what’s my agenda? i guess I can let you know I’ve never voted Labor as first preferance in my life.

The reason I am upset with the Liberal party and labelling it the “Liberal racist card” is because this is on the agenda because its been put there by Ruddock and his mates at The Australian. It’s been a horrible month for the coalition so they return to their old dirty tricks of the last decade, demonise a group by appealing to the racist element in Aussie society and try to run a fear campaign, thus avoiding scrutiny of their failures. When Labor does it its the Labor racist card, but as its being pushed by Ruddock I’ll call it the Liberal racist card in this instance.

Observer says:

11:00am | 14/10/09

It doesn’t take many evil people to destroy a nation, and I fear what else these people bring with them apart from desperation that requires them to knowingly break the laws of our country to gain entry.  We want people who will obey the rule of law, and keep the civil peace, who will be a support to our society, not a drain on it.  We do not want any disease or environmental problems from what them or what they bring with them.  By arriving in an uncontrolled manner, and foisting themselves on us, they do themselves great harm.  Obilgated charity is always grudging, I’m afraid.

David C says:

11:02am | 14/10/09

Dan mine was a genuine question not a racist comment. I am honestly questioning why if the motive behind their fleeing their home country was to find a better place why wouldnt they just settle in Indonesia? Isnt it a requirement that a Muslim counrty has to give refuge to Musiims?

Derick says:

11:06am | 14/10/09

h - your right, nothing should be said about this, it shouldn’t be in the media, just keep it quiet just in case Kevin gets a bit of bad publicity out of it. How dare the Libs try and expose anything to the public without first checking with Kevin. Absolutely apprehensible! Shame on you Libs!

marley says:

11:12am | 14/10/09

I think a lot of people are missing the point.  The perceived weakening of the current Government’s stance on asylum seekers has encouraged the smugglers to start loading people back onto leaky boats.  It’s cheaper than arranging fake passports, visas and airline tickets, after all.  And business right now is good. So more people are going to arrive by boat - or die at sea trying to get here.  Those that get onto planes, on the other hand, have a much better chance of making it here alive.  I don’t think it’s being racist to do everything possible to stamp out the very risky boat traffic. As a counterbalance, increase the numbers accepted out of the refugee camps in Pakistan or Indonesia or wherever.

h says:

11:23am | 14/10/09

In response to David (first comment), illegal “immigration” from Mexico to the U.S.A and the cheap labor provided by non-green card residents is one of the reasons that the U.S.A is such a strong economy. Even many U.S. Conservatives recognise this

Dani says:

11:30am | 14/10/09

fantastic article claire. and we can see everyone so studiously ignoring those facts you mentioned all over again here in the comments!

h says:

11:36am | 14/10/09

Derick, I’m not suggesting that it shouldn’t be said, but feel free to attack a comment I didn’t make it’s just not a very convincing way of making a point (its called building a straw man btw).

I’m saying it make me incredibly dissapointed with the Liberal party that 10 years later they are still offering views that were antiquated then and playing on people’s fears.

Karen says:

11:47am | 14/10/09

Rudd doesn’t play on peoples fears with Climate Change?

Tim says:

11:57am | 14/10/09

For most of these Refugees, getting to Australia is their end goal. They have passed through many countries previously in which they would not be persecuted.
Why then do they not apply for refugee status in these other countries and try to be resettled?
Or is it more about the economic benefits of finally reaching Australia?
What about the far more needy people who could not afford to pay people smugglers and are left behind? does getting here on a boat somehow make you more worthy of our kindness?

dave says:

01:10pm | 14/10/09

factual reporting without bucketful’s of ignorant opinion . i had forgotten what such a thing looked like.

Ish says:

01:25pm | 14/10/09

Did people not read the figures in Claire’s article at all?? I’m glad to see an article which brings a little bit of balance back to the debate, although swiftly ignored by the majority of posters.

I’m a migrant myself (legally and by plane) but it annoys me to no end those who harp on about Australia being overrun by migrants such as David comment 1 07:43am | 14/10/09.

Australia is built on multiculturalism and migration. Where would we be without the migrants that have come and built their homes and businesses and brought their culture with them? I’m sure the biggots would say a happier place, but in reality Australia’s economy would grind to a halt and the population would not be able to support itself.

“Assimilation” pisses me off as well but I guess that’s a subject for another day.

h says:

01:43pm | 14/10/09

Dave, I know its like we are being transported back to the times and attitudes of when our parents were young, but instead of a Delorean and Michael J Fox we are being transported via Ruddock opion pieces and News Limited

andrew says:

01:51pm | 14/10/09

I’m not surprised at all to see the ignorant comments here.  After all “On average, Australians believe that about 60 per cent of asylum seekers come to Australia by boat. More than a third of Australians believe that over 80 per cent of asylum seekers arrive by boat.”

The whole debate around asylum seekers in Australia has been shaped by the scaremongering and political point scoring by the government of the day around the Tampa / children overboard affairs. It’s been 8 years since then and it’s shocking to see both sides of politics resort back into this ugly political game.

Garry Lawson says:

02:16pm | 14/10/09

Wow , Do I care about asylum seekers, hellll noo, big bloody deal, let them in here in australia.
Looks like the government uses the old political trick, things are bad but we aint going to help you, so lets change the subject to asylum seekers.
For christs sake, big deal bout seekers, fix our real problems, like people losing their homes, family breaking up because their is no work, go to hospital and die as we aint got no money to fix the hospitals and let the bank charge you thru the nose for credit.
I lost my job 3 months ago, I ahve put in for atleast 100 jobs and had 3 interviews all up, I might lose my house soon because casual work is only for a a day a week and that is well short of my house payment.
Gat real, get on the real issues and talk about things important like unemployment, hospitals over worked and understaffed.

Alla says:

03:43pm | 14/10/09

:OK that all sounds good and dandy, lets get it out there and let refugees know Rudd will look after you all, come to Australia. The problem is where the hell does he plan to put them all?  Maybe get a share of the aboriginal houses he hasn’t buuilt in the NT?

Jarrod says:

04:28pm | 14/10/09

I have to thank the commenters here.  My daughter is studying the White Australia Policy in school and these comments have given me plenty of reference material on how that particular sad part of our history is relevant in today’s society

Louise says:

05:21pm | 14/10/09

“Amnesty International flatly rejects the assertion that recent changes to Government policy have led to an increase in the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat.” That’s ridiculous. The numbers have gone from 0 under the Howard government to nearly 2,000 since the election of Rudd, the vast majority of whom arrived after the changes in policy made by the Rudd government last year. By all means argue the case for Australia to increase the number of refugees accepted each year. However, there is no moral high ground in encouraging desperate people to pay criminals to risk their lives at sea and then threaten self harm (and by default murder) when apprehended. Five people are dead already because of Rudd’s change in policy. How many more have to die for Rudd to admit he is wrong? People smugglers are in it for the money. It’s immoral to encourage their lethal business.

Charles says:

06:24pm | 14/10/09

Jarrod, you show the typical ‘leftist’ response by trying to shut down the debate and declare all opponents racist.  I could describe you as a cretin, but that would be doing the average cretin a disservice and giving them a more abusive label than they may deserve.  Contrary to popular opinion, it is still OK in Australia to point out the faults in ones arguments (Claire Mallinsons article being a case in point).  So, rather than trying to impose your egregious and specious form of opinion in trying to close down this debate, why don’t you just let the rest of them get on with it, without you trying to be a smart-@rse and impose some false form of higher moral ground that you don’t actually occupy.

Harlequinsgo says:

07:11pm | 14/10/09

Ask the aboriginal population if uncontrolled immigration is a good or bad thing for those already within a land.

Duke says:

07:26pm | 14/10/09

Wow 2000 are really going to screw our 25 million eh?  Massively exaggerated claptrap…

Louise says:

08:04pm | 14/10/09

Duke, it’s not about the 25 million (actually 22 million if you mean Australia’s population), it’s the 2,000 that are risking their lives on the shaky promises of criminals enboldened by Rudd wanting to win votes. The death of one person is tragic. How could you be so callous about the threat to 2,000 plus?

Michael says:

08:11pm | 14/10/09

2000 Tamil Tigers seeking to continue their disgusting war against Sri Lanka from our borders could do plenty of damage to our nation, acid attacks anyone, extortion?

Dan, they may have been persecuted because they are terrorists maybe you should go and have a read about the Tamil Tigers, not every rebel group is fighting for a just cause mate.

Mark says:

08:40pm | 14/10/09

With the world population increasing year by year its only going to get worse no matter what. Food, water, medical care etc are the most sort after. What does it mean for us? well I think we will have to accept 100s of thousands much to the detriment of our society. No matter what happens or what we do, refugees will go somewhere and Australia is the place to be. Living standards and financial support is the attraction.

I think in the end it will see some massive changes socially. Cruel to be kind or is it kind to be Cruel?

Bitten says:

04:04pm | 15/10/09

@hoofman and Jo: Actually my question was genuine and did not pass any judgment on their choices - if people run away from nations where the citizens are oppressed, how can anything ever change in those nations? If you leave to escape persecution, persecution will still occur.

And the suggestion that I know nothing about the situations people are escaping from is laughable - I volunteer to teach refugees English and have housed many when they are first starting out in society, looking for work and accommodation etc. My question still stands - who will demand societies and the powers in those societies change their oppressive ways if the citizens do not and just leave?

Paul says:

09:51pm | 15/10/09

Enough of left wing policies, and there loonacy ,the fact they need to get to Australia these illegal immigrants so badly after they are all in a safe Muslim country like Indonesia ,is proof enough that Australia is there desired destination because they get a free ride and a how to vote Labour card on the way in.Kevin Krudd is not interested in the well being of these criminals or Australia’s best interest .It his interests he is looking after, and that is too sell out Australia to the United Nations for his eternal job there,like Mr Evans achieved when he sold Australia out by signing the Lima agreement

Colin says:

12:56pm | 23/10/09

Can’t believe the comments on here!  I feel like in a time warp back in the days of Good Ol’ White Australia. Please read the article you are commenting on at least.This is embarassing.

frank says:

03:26pm | 22/07/12

The problem I have with people arriving by boat isn’t the numbers, or necessarily even how easily it is to identify them. It’s the fact that the border arrival rules in the Convention on the Status of Refugees is a loophole that is abused by people with the means to do so, to the detriment of other migrants and refugees.

The border arrival rules, reflected in our own immigration law, state that people fleeing persecution who arrive on a country’s doorstep must be accepted and offered protection. It is a good rule, designed in the wake of WWII when Jews were turned back at the borders of neighbouring countries when trying to flee Nazi oppression, leading them to later be shipped off to Auschwitz. It is designed for immediate sanctuary from an imminent threat.

The problem is, this is not what is happening here. Even if boat people are legitimate refugees, they have escaped oppression long before they arrive in Australia - travelling thousands of kilometres and bypassing or passing through many other countries which offer asylum along the way.

What is happening is that they are seeking to obtain the best bang for their buck by arriving on the doorstep of the best country possible and making full use of that treaty clause. The people who arrive here are the most wealthy refugees because they have spent a dozen times the average annual wage or more in order to pay for their passage.

Do these people deserve asylum? Perhaps. But we have a limit to how many asylum seekers (onshore + offshore) we accept. When it comes to choosing them, do we want our hand forced by those seekers with the greatest wealth and ability to play the system? I would say no.

If there was any justice in the system I would love to fly every single boat person back to border refugee camps in Asia, and then take two people from the front of the queue there. You know, two people who are probably just as deserving (if not moreso) but just couldn’t afford the fare to lob in on our doorstep.

Sara says:

01:17pm | 09/10/12

I can’t over over the bigoted, ignorant fools commenting on this article. What part of “tiny percent of asylum seeker population” don’t you people understand. And I never got the whole “why do they bypass other countries” thing. So it’s okay with you for people to seek asylum as long as they don’t come to Australian? Australia prides itself in being less backward and more progressive than Malaysia and other Asian countries. Maybe that’s why some people choose Australia, even though its hell to travel that far on a crappy boat. Nobody likes to be in that situation. You people are awful and make me embarrassing to be Australian.