Christmas Island proof the whole system is broken

Jade says:

06:43am | 21/03/11

Totally agree Erick.

Adam Diver says:

07:02am | 21/03/11

Accept no refugees who come here. Accept them only from overseas refugee camps, no exceptions. I guarantee there would not be a boat making the journey within 2 years.

Another thing that concerns me is the mental state of the refugees we are taking. As the article points out, overcrowded and highly charged detention centres, with slow processing, do not bode well for easy assimilation into the Australian population.

Phil says:

07:11am | 21/03/11

Erick. Its pretty simple really, if they didnt loose their papers or destroy them then security checks and background checks would be far easier and their time could be less.
Of course Labor only did a backflip for a short period just to get reelected.
Personally those causing trouble should be taken on a leaky boat to where they came from and at the same time go to camps throughout the world and get double the number of patient law abiding genuine refugees who would love to come to this country.
As I said the other day the greens seem to want all the refugees, so maybe the Libs should adopt an open borders policy of permanent, ie lifetime resettlement in Tasmania of every refugee for the next 20 years. All welcome.

AdamC says:

08:34am | 21/03/11

I agree with 1 and 2, but caution 3, at least where it pertains to limiting avenues of appeal, and 4 would probably be overturned by the courts.

You’ll not convince the likes of the author, though, because you, like me and most of the Australian population, see the objective of asylum policy as being reducing boat arrivals. Organisastion like Amnesty International (a group I otherwise have some sympathy for) simply refuse to accept the legitimacy of any policy premised around reducing arrivals. This is a stance held akin to a religious conviction.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:44am | 21/03/11

Exactly Erick. 
 
I would add that we need to revamp the tribunal so that it is not stacked with people who have a vested interest in the refugee industry.

marley says:

08:49am | 21/03/11

@Erick - I can’t agree entirely with your comments.  For example, I don’t much see the point of reinstituting TPVs - when last they were introduced, the number of asylum seekers kept climbing. - so they don’t really seem to work.

As for abrogating the Convention and Protocol, I seriously doubt either the ALP or the Coalition will ever do it, so the question then becomes one of working more effectively within it, rather than dreaming of simply walking away from it.  I think, as you suggest, that the Tribunals need to be restructured.  We need to find some way of making them more objective and rigorous.  We have to find some way of limiting appeal rights of non-nationals.

And I certainly agree that any asylum seekers convicted of criminality should be denied access to the refugee system.  Rapid deportation is difficult though, if you can’t identify the individual.  Where do you deport him to? Charge them, try them, jail them if they’re found guilty, and then try to get rid of them, but it will be a long, slow, drawn out process. That’s the unfortunate reality.

Gregg says:

09:48am | 21/03/11

@ marley,
Do you ned to have a broader look at those increasing numbers of those using the boat charters to seek asylum when we had TPVs in place.
And your broader look also needs to conceptualise on the pipeline effect for any change in legislation usually means that there is a flow on situation and more immediate changes the other way can occur when a carrot is dangled.

The real situation as in Immigration records and in other documentation will show that whereas the use of boats from Indonesia and people using them was on a steep rise curve, after the TPVs were introduced, those numbers dropped dramatically within two years and remained at next to nothing levels for about 6-7 years until Krudd revoked the TPVs and started the flow surging again.

It is so clearly there for you to see if you really want to Marley.

marley says:

10:28am | 21/03/11

@Gregg - I am looking at the big picture, Gregg.  The TPV was introduced in late 1999, a year in which we had over 3700 boat arrivals.  In 2000 there were over 2900 arrivals, and in 2001, there were 5500.  I don’t believe for one minute that those 5500 were “in the pipeline” for well over a year.

The Pacific Solution was introduced in late 2001, the year that the aforementioned 5500 arrived. In 2002, 1 person arrived in Australia (and at most, a few hundred on Nauru). 

So, was the drop in 2002 due to the TPV, or to the Pacific Solution?  I vote for the latter. I don’t believe the TPV makes a damn bit of difference, because whether someone is a legitimate asylum seeker or an economic migrant, the chance to live and work in Australia for a few years is worth heaps.

Gregg says:

10:46am | 21/03/11

@Marley,
Well, you believe what you want to but perhaps you’ll be prepared to consider two things:
. how long do you think someone will be working on getting to Australia via the back door and will people smugglers advise people not to try?
That could account for the flow on, Pacific solution some icing on not that cake.
. if the TPVs was not a significant cause of the reduction, it would seem very convenient that it started up again very promptly once the TPVs were revoked, no Pacific solution then.
btw, the only reason for the Pacific solution was that the Xmas Island facility had to be constructed.

bobw says:

11:09am | 21/03/11

@marley/Erick:  Where is the systemic evidence that the RRT is insufficiently “objective and rigorous” or insufficiently “skeptical”?

marley says:

11:21am | 21/03/11

@Gregg - someone may work months to get a smuggling solution out of Afghanistan - the big challenge is getting the documents that will allow you to get to Malaysia or Indonesia.  That’s a slow and expensive process. Once in Indonesia, either your Pakistani smuggler has already lined up your Indonesian smuggler, or your family in Australia has, or maybe you just flash a wad of bills in the first fishing village you come to.  So no, I don’t buy the argument that there’s a lengthy pipeline of people waiting to get from Indonesia to Australia.

What I do think is that when the Pacific Solution happened, the smugglers could no longer market an attractive product to the asylum seekers (or their friends and family here) because the Solution meant that the chances of at least a few years’ work in Australia were reduced. 

And I’d argue that it was Rudd’s announcement of the end of the Pacific Solution, much more than the ending of the TPV policy, that precipitated the return of the boats in 2009.

Gregg says:

12:28pm | 21/03/11

@Marley,
Oh come on mate, if you knew the system so well you would know that the pipeline time is from go to whoa and not just for the last boat ride.

Both the TPVs and Pacific Solution no doubt potentially had an effect for it was hand and glove whereas if you really reckon too many would have been noting what Rudd would say, feel free to believe it whatever he said.
He said a lot about a lot of things but there is little respect when nothing happens, Indigenous sorry being one glaring example and cover up on insulation deaths not too respectful either.
We’re better off without him, even if worse off with Juliar Gigglaraffi.

marley says:

12:29pm | 21/03/11

@bobw - I’d say the evidence is in the acceptance rate.  That’s a very high acceptance rate, particularly given that many of the asylum seekers do not have any documents at all.  Bear in mind that the global average acceptance rates for Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians and Sri Lankans hover around the 50% mark.  At least, that’s what the UN Statistical Yearbook says, and I guess they’re a pretty reliable source.

Rosie says:

01:00pm | 21/03/11

All this govt’s failed policies are coming from all directions, yet they still talk to us like we are listening to a govt that gives us good governance, the one that cares about Australia and its people.

“I am sure most of us were raised that to speak too much is to make a complete fool of yourself.”

bobw says:

01:30pm | 21/03/11

@marley:  I haven’t seen the figures you speak of.  But I’m not sure how raw numbers as to outcomes provide any basis for conclusions about the quality of tribunal decision-making - let alone for questioning Tribunal members’ competence and integrity (which is basically what you are doing in doubting their rigour and objectivity).

marley says:

02:33pm | 21/03/11

@bobw - I’m not questioning their integrity, but I do have questions about their rigour.  Acceptance rates for Afghans, for example, range from 0% in Greece to 33% in the Netherlands, to 50% in Denmark and the UK, to 94% in Canada and 100% in Australia.  Why the variation?  I think it needs to be looked at. 

There is general recognition among both asylum countries and within the UNHCR itself, that most boat movements are in fact “mixed movements” of refugees and economic migrants.  I don’t see any reason why our boat movement should be an exception.  So, yes, I think we need to look more closely at the nature of the asylum claims we’re seeing. 

That may mean better training for decision-makers, better access to information about country conditions, better decision-making criteria, whatever - but I do believe we need to improve the process.

mikeymike says:

03:04pm | 21/03/11

Erick, you and I both know that 2, 3 and 4 won’t happen.

Here’s my solution.  We invite the UN to open a refugee camp here.

Hear me out.  We get our genuine refugees from UN camps wherever there is conflict.  I have no problem with these arrivals.  Welcome to Australia.  As for the boat arrivals, we have queue jumpers and economic refugees.  So to them I say, back to the camps.  But where?  Since they have destroyed their documentation, we have no idea where they came from. 
We allow the UN to set up their own camp here.  We finance it.  They then tell us whether or not this person in the Australian camp is more deserving of a place than another person in, say, Pakistan.  It is the correct authority making the judgement.
No accusations of racism (everyone is now being treated equally), no queue jumping and no market for the people smugglers.

bobw says:

03:15pm | 21/03/11

@marley:  I’d still say that those numbers don’t of themselves say very much about the quality of decision-making in Australia.  In fact, the sheer variance between countries suggests that a whole range of factors are in play:  different rules of evidence, different legal presumptions, different policy directives, different review mechanisms etc etc.

Erick says:

03:16pm | 21/03/11

An interesting idea, Mikeymike, but I’m not convinced.

For one thing, the UN is completely untrustworthy as an authority for deciding anything. So that kind of kills the whole idea.

As for (2) not happening - I’m pretty sure that within the next two decades, most advanced Western nations will renounce the Refugee Convention and Protocol. Australia has an opportunity to lead the pack, but at this point the UK and other European dumping grounds have more motivation.

mikeymike says:

05:10pm | 21/03/11

@ Erick
Agreed re the UN hierachy.  But they are the ones we use now.  I’m looking at a system that is no different from the ones that cater for genuine refugees in war zones.  If you were a people smuggler, what possible incentive could you offer a camp dweller sitting in the UN queue?  “Look, it will be exactly the same as here, but hotter.”  Yeah right.

As for item 2…  I’m willing to bet that nothing is going to happen in, oh I don’t know,  the next ten years.  Shall we say $50?

Jude of Brisbane says:

07:50am | 22/03/11

Spot on Erik.  At last some sense.

steven says:

02:20pm | 28/03/11

Do you people know what to be a refugee??

stevie p says:

06:18am | 21/03/11

What a really pathetic comment.

james milton says:

07:10am | 21/03/11

The asylum seekers don’t want free shelter, free medical, free food, free protection while their mostly dodgy claims are processed? Then they can go home, I’m sure the govt. would pay for their flight back..

Failing (sic) that, they could always go to Indonesia, you know, the last safe haven they arrived from?

@Acotrel, that is by no means a full list of Labor’s failures. Surely you can do better than that. Everything they touch is made of fail.

Aitch B says:

10:45am | 21/03/11

@acotrel

Have you taken up the reins for nosthow??

How about you stop banging on about Abbott, Morrison and the Coalition and applaud your ALP/Green/Independent caolition for their wonderful work in this area.

Oh…. that’s right - you can’t. They are doing a crap job and you know it.

6,500 and counting, acotrel. Can’t wait for that ‘East Timor’ solution to be up and running…. that’ll fix it, won’t it?

acotrel says:

03:43am | 22/03/11

@AitchB Perhaps we should house all the new arrivals in Alice Springs.? Then Tony Abbott could bash them as well as the aborigines, in his latest quest for the political limelight? It’d be a much bigger issue - something he could really get his teeth into! Then you could all cease trying to blow the asylum seeker thing up into something significant?

Drunk Guy says:

08:21am | 22/03/11

Once again a political attack on the opposition rather than any logical contribution to the debate, do you work in Shorten’s office??

AliceC says:

07:29am | 21/03/11

Having money does not prevent you from being in a life threatening situation.

james milton says:

07:43am | 21/03/11

@AliceC

So the rich persecuted people who have more choices should be given preferential treatment to the penniless persecuted people who have no choices at all?

That sounds really fair.. actually, no. It’s totally discriminatory.

acotrel says:

08:51am | 21/03/11

If somebody has $10K for a place on a boat, why wouldn’t they buy a ticket on a plane?

LP42 says:

10:23am | 21/03/11

Because to get on a plane, you need a visa and you have to get through immigration. The reason they hop on a boat is because they wouldn’t be allowed onto a plane. Hence, illegal.

marley says:

10:29am | 21/03/11

@Acotrel - someone with $10,000 may be able to buy a ticket on a plane, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be allowed to board it.  For that, they need a passport and a visa.

Jane says:

12:25pm | 21/03/11

I also love comments about over crowding. Anyone who thinks our detention centres are suffering from over crowding should take a trip to see what the refugee camps are like. At least here they have guaranteed sanitation, food, excercise and access to legal representation.

CynicalGoatWA says:

03:17pm | 21/03/11

So acotrel, the people smugglers are now giving free passage now are they??  I mean from your comments you obviously don’t believe that the hard done by queue jumpers are paying what is the accepted cost of a ticket on these floating palaces.

Rita says:

08:04am | 21/03/11

I also agree - the refugee camp on Christmas island is overcrowded - so they burn down the buildings! These people are criminals and should be returned immediately to where they came from. I object strongly to my tax dollars being wasted in this way. If they are here because they are afraid for their lives, then why are they complaining about free accommodation, free food, free education for their children and medical care? Obviously they don’t just want to feel safe and cared for, they want housing, jobs, etc - while we have some of our own citizens jobless, homeless and sleeping in the streets, while people needing medical care have to wait months and sometimes years. There could always be a rule made that people will have to wait five years for visas to be processed and that is that and that. When and if they are allowed to stay, they have to pay back a given amount via the tax system that was spent on them while their applications were being processed.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

06:35pm | 21/03/11

Most of them are Afghans and Iraqis and we seem to have bombed their homes to bits.

Do you think before you write such garbage.

It is the government that has broken the law, they were told that 20 years ago but keep doing it to pander to dickheads like you.

This is the law and there is no use pretending otherwise like we do.

62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.
63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an “unlawful non-citizen” under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a “right” conferred upon him under Australian law.”

See, no crime. It is right under the law but I am always intrigued at the whine about people paying for their own transport to get here - would you rather pay for it?

Drunk Guy says:

08:35am | 22/03/11

Sorry Marylin, I’m confused, according to the act we seem to be acting quite properly by detaining boat people to asses their claim for refugee status, their identity and prior criminal history if any because it seems the act works retrospectively only on those who are accepted and granted asylum. The others who are not granted asylum for what ever reason including the crimes of burning down government facilities I suspect, do not have any rights whatsoever in the act, they are simply illegal arrivals.

I’m sorry if disagreeing with you makes everyone a dickhead too.

Further, as part of the military coalition, “we” liberated these people from oppression and quite probably made their lives better as far as being persecuted unless of course they were the ones doing the original oppressing, then maybe they have something to answer for in their own country.

Kate says:

10:28am | 22/03/11

Marilyn, are you drunk?
Seriously, what is going through your brain? Because you make no sense.  Do YOU think before you write such garbage?

If you genuinely think these people are true refugrees that have come from Afghanistan or Iraqn, then please explain to me TWO very simple things:
1) If you are genuinely fleeing, why would you pass through many safe harbours until you got to Australia? Surely you would stop at the first safe place?
2) If you were genuinely fleeing, wouldn’t you spend as much time as required in a detention centre, grateful for the fact that at least you were safe?
Go on. Explain it to me. I will put money on the fact that you can’t because you’ve been too busy riding your moral high horse to take a good, objective look at the situation.

BTW, how many Afghans have you spoken to about the oppression they suffer/suffered under Taliban rule? I’m going to go with….none.
Go back to your commune, love.

Scarneck says:

08:36am | 21/03/11

Gee, the banjo players are out in force today. These are human beings we’re talking about here, not your bloody pets. I suspect most of you would have more respect for your pets!

Gregg says:

09:57am | 21/03/11

@Scarneck,
You are right there for whereas there are regulations to be adhered to for many pets and many owners and pets do the right thing within a society, that is more than we can say for people attempting to bulldoze their way into Australia at the expense of true refugees via UNHCR processes and all Australians.

Try to stay in tune says:

10:25am | 21/03/11

Gregg
If you have a problem with the way things are currently handled, your “beef” is with Australia being a signatory to the UNHCR convention.
I don’t remember Howard “un-signing it”
I would think the LNP banjo players could be doing things much more constructive. - Like picking their tooth.

Jade says:

11:56am | 21/03/11

@ Scarneck, of course I have more respect for my pets.  As Gregg said they don’t break the law.

These people are in this position from choices they made.  They have to deal with the consequences and if that means sitting in detention for two years so be it.  As I said… no sympathy.  I am sorry, but just because I have no compassion for these people doesn’t make me a banjo playing hick.

Scarneck says:

12:21pm | 21/03/11

Jade - You have absolutely no idea why these people made the choice they did - based on your unimpassioned reply “I have more respect for my pets” I am betting that you have never once stepped foot outside of Australia, or at least been to any of the countries these people are fleeing from, if you had, you would not make such despicable comments. Karma works in strange ways - beware Jade!! - BTW -  I didn’t mention hick - you did.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

02:10pm | 21/03/11

@ Scarneck - My dog doesn’t bite me on the leg, set fire to my house, call me a racist, then demand i build it a new kennel.

Oh and You have absolutely no idea why these people made the choice they did. Do you. Think about it, your tale of woe and misfortune sounds more romantic and dramatic, but you have as little idea as Jade does as to why these people come.

Jade says:

02:27pm | 21/03/11

Haha karma for not showing compassion? give me a break! I know why they left… they seen the great big dollar sign over Australia and decided they wanted a piece of the welfare pie

Scarneck says:

06:34pm | 21/03/11

Jade - Afraid they might bite into your dole are you? You all make me ashamed to say I am Australian.

Jade says:

08:09pm | 21/03/11

Ha my dole? Wow you really are scrapping the bottom of the barrel there, I have never been on the dole sorry.. and I hope I never have to.  I prefer to work for my money and you can’t pay a mortgage on 275 bucks a week.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

11:09am | 21/03/11

I thought they were all going to East Timor, at least that is what the redhead said.

Phil says:

07:16pm | 21/03/11

Ted as I said above, seeing as Bob Brown, Christine Milne and Sarah Hanson Young want them how about we set them all up with an open door policy in their streets. See NSW and QLD have only one senator, so send them to the other areas who chose 2. Tasmania, South Aust. West Aust.

fml says:

01:26pm | 21/03/11

Complaining that asylum seekers have it better than you do, may sound like it makes sense. But, One thing your failing to mention is that you have freedom. They do not.

If their situation is so enticing, would you trade your freedom, and 5 months of waiting times to be in a detention centre for a number of years?

Erick says:

02:21pm | 21/03/11

fml, they have the freedom not to come to Australia, thus avoiding the detention centres. Your point is pointless.

fml says:

03:17pm | 21/03/11

yes, erick, they have the freedom to be killed in war, or suffer religious or racial persecution.

you also have the freedom to put forward a rational argument, but you fail to do that.

what Tk, fails to mention as well is that, they were not spending 5 months in a country ravaged by war, or in control of a malevolent dictator with a thirst for power.

My point is only pointless to those with an agenda, in regards to Tk’s post, it does have a point, the point being that Tk seems to be equating their plight to be worse than the Asylum seekers, which it is infact not.

Freddy says:

10:38am | 21/03/11

It would seem that the public purse is an open cheque book if you call yourself an assylum seeker and yet hard working Australians in Queensland are living in their car in the driveway where their house used to be before the floods and they would be greatful for the accomadation that the Xmas island mob have destroyed. That doesn’t take into account the millions spent to cook and clean and secure and transport these people all over the country before we start to support them upon release into the community clutching their passport to benefits and then trips back home (where they were supposedly persecuted) to visit the relies.

Mac says:

11:15am | 21/03/11

Freddy
It’s really hard to believe that you want to send ALL the families living in their cars in Queensland to Christmas Island.

Jade says:

03:52pm | 21/03/11

@ Mac… swap Christmas Island with those 5 star motels they are staying at in Brisbane, I am sure QLD’ers living in their cars would love that, don’t you agree?

Cate P says:

11:37am | 21/03/11

You said it Huey.  Disaster doesn’t begin to cover what is happening.

Jay says:

04:37pm | 21/03/11

It’s even worse than that, KH.  They are using our money to fund their relatives to come over here and join them!  We are being used and abused like bit$#@s in jail and the bleeding hearts just keep on bleeding!  I think it’s so sad, it’s hilarious.  My advice is to stop caring either way.  Let the civil libs ruin the country.  They’ll come crying back to people like you and I when their own country is being held to ransom and their personal houses are being overrun, like the UK is right now, thanks to ridiculous liberal piolicies, bleeding hearts and compassion where toughness was needed. It’s irreversible, and too many spineless losers are in charge backed up by too many soulless lawyers.  It’s one way, and we are at Mach 6.  Forget it.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

06:39pm | 21/03/11

It is not a crime to pay for transport and there has never been a single person charged with paying for transport.  It is simply none of our business who people pay for transport - it could be Qantas or a Pashtun truck driver, a boat owner or the owner of a private jet.  Paying for transport is no more a criminal offence than arriving without a visa.

And KH, what if you get your aim and stop people coming?  There will still be 14 million refugees and we will be breaking our own laws all in the name of trying to keep out just 6,000 of them.

Everyone has the right to seek asylum - but do you know what I want for rednecks like you?

That one day you are trapped in a place where your human rights are shockingly abused and you are locked up without trial or charge because guess what?  It will be me or Alex who will help you, it will not be the government.

Just ask Mamdouh Habib.

marley says:

08:39am | 21/03/11

@Richard - your last paragraph is incorrect.  In order to comply with UN protocols, asylum seekers must apply in the first safe country they reach, true.  But according to those same UN protocols, a safe country is one which is a signatory to the UN Convention.  That excludes Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.  So, like it or not, the Convention most definitely does allow an Afghan who has travelled via any or all of these countries to make a claim in the first safe country he reaches, which is us.

Richard Head says:

09:02am | 21/03/11

Fact
Asylum seekers irrespective of their mode of arrival, like others that arrive in Australia without a valid visa, are classified by Australian law to be ‘unlawful non?citizens’. However, the term ‘unlawful’ does not mean that asylum seekers have committed a criminal offence. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa..
The UNHCR emphasises that a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution should be viewed as a refugee and not be labelled an ‘illegal immigrant’ as the very nature of persecution means that their only means of escape may be via illegal entry and/or the use of false documentation.
The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non?citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers.
As at 30 June 2009, it was estimated that there were about 48,700 visa overstayers (illegal immigrants) residing in Australia.

I noticed you didn’t quote any immigration document to support your nearest safe country bull!

Bloggs says:

09:47am | 21/03/11

These people that come from Afghanistan or any of the other areas must of necessity travel through countries that are indeed safe and can be regarded as safe.  Whilst these countries have not signed the UN convention, they are safe.  Pakistan is safe for the muslim. India, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand and others in the middle are indeed safe countries.

How much money does it cose these people to travel all that way?  Through how many countries do they travel?  All those countries demand passports so why do they toss them out on arrival here? How much travel money is needed?  How much accommodation money is needed? We can indeed go on and on about these people but they are illegal and they are hiding something.

How can we dispute the fact they these people do not have honest intentions?  And at that, we do not want them in Australia.

Mouse says:

05:28pm | 21/03/11

But, unless their intention is to only get to Australia, why go south? There are UN signatories so much closer to Afghanistan, namely to the north - Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, to the west - Iran, Turkey, all of Europe and to the east - China, Cambodia. If they were in imminent fear of their life, why not get themselves to the closest protection? No boat journeys to any of them. Here’s your link Mr Head http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
Richard’s extract from “Illegal Entry Provention” which is from the Dept of Immigration & Citizenship.
http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/border-security/illegal-entry/
People who have arrived unlawfully into Australia are subjected to Australian laws as stated by DIAC, so they are not arrested as criminals but detained as unlawful arrivals and remain in detention until their case has been processed. If they had supplied their visa or ID on arrival,  their detention would not be as long as processing would be able to be done fairly quickly.  Here’s the link for that one.
http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/about/background.htm
I am not saying what is right or wrong or what they should or shouldn’t do . What I am saying is that there are facts and fancy and it seems that to have a productive debate the facts and not the emotions have to be followed. It is an emotive subject and we have to protect people from harm, but we also have to protect our country from harm as well. It is imperative that we only allow good people to settle here.  It’s not a toss of a coin, it’s the protection of us all.

Wayne says:

08:29pm | 21/03/11

Bill Agree 100%

Jude of Brisbane says:

08:05am | 22/03/11

totally agree Hamish

Gregg says:

10:12am | 21/03/11

Those countries may not be signatories to the UN convention Rebekah but do have a look at UNHCR activities and you will see that there are centres all throughout the Middle East and Asia that people can go to for registering as a refugee.
And it is via co-operation with the UNHCR that Australia has for many years run a humanitarian program numbering about 13,500 annually, there being on regular count about 15M refugees globally and 50,000 annually apply for Australia.
Any country will have a limitation to numbers that it can integrate into its communities and the people not prepared to use the UNHCR programs and in fact bulldoze their way past registered refugees are then reducing the opportunities for those refugees.

I would hope you can support the many well educated professional claim for I doubt very much whether a professional person would lend themselves to violent activities.
And then there is the matter of what those professionals might be able to do in Australia.
Have a good explore around http://www.immi.gov.au and you’ll see what skilled immigrants need to do to immigrate and people using boats from Indonesia are causing delays in processing of fee paying immigration applicants, many who have spent months if not years preparing for an immigration application.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

06:31pm | 21/03/11

Gregg, what on earth do skilled migrants have to do with refugees?

The only UNHCR process operation in Indonesia is paid for by us, the prisons are paid for by us, the prison guards are paid for by us and it is all illegal.

Can you imagine us allowing staff and cops from other countries setting up operations here like we think we have the right to do in Malaysia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia and 13 other nations all in the name of stopping any refugees ever seeking asylum here?

Talk about racist and over bearing morons.

What is wrong with you people.  No matter how many times you are told the truth you babble endlessly spewing out the tired discredited old lies.

Jude of Brisbane says:

08:12am | 22/03/11

How very naive you are Rebekah.  They sail straight past those places knowing what our refugee processing system is but still come here by the thousand then abuse our country once they are here.  I for one, am over it.  We need to be discouraging them at all costs and this government isn’t doing enough about that.  They are smart enough with the phones and computers to know that suckers like you will fight to ensure they are allowed entry, have minimal back ground checks and are let into this country.  They are dead set smarter than we are, they have sorted out well and truly that they can lob here, get lots of sympathy from the bleeding hearts, do what they like, get on welfare then tell their mates back home how easy it is.  What about these fit, healthy young blokes from Afghanistan who are paying money to get on these boats and come out here while our young Aussie men are losing their lives fighting their fights because these blokes are way to gutless to do it.  I have no sympathy at all for any of these healthy young men coming out here, they should be home doing what our young Aussies are doing.  Makes you wonder what the real reason for them coming out here is.

AdamC says:

09:47am | 21/03/11

@Rachel, I think you lack a full knowledge of the issues. Australia offers resettlement to refugees, which is why boat people come here. In places like Pakistan (the same thing occurs in other refugee hotspots), refugees are accommodated in camps and are not provided with resettlement. You are comparing apples and oranges. In places like Lebanon, Palestinian refugees have lived in camps for decades.

Gregg says:

10:29am | 21/03/11

@Rachel,
Your comments are not without some merit but perhaps your thoughts can be widened and I do not mean beyond sickening though there is some good reason for many Australians to be sickened.

But lets look at Pakistan and yep there are many refugees there from mainly Afghanistan and a huge percentage of them want to return home as is what the UNHCR report if we want to believe them and I see no reason not to.
One of the prime UNHCR policies is in fact to set up refugee camps as close to conflict areas as safely possible for that very reason and so despite the problems of Pakistan, the UNHCR not only keeps people close to their homeland but another reason for that policy is cost and whereas the UNHCR can support whole families on just a few $$$ a day in places like Pakistan, that is far different to the cost that will occur in transporting them about the globe in hope of resettlement.
Read all about it with the UNHCR.

Sure we resettle relatively few in numbr, the annual humanitarian program being budgetted at 13,500 annually but it is a reasonable figure comparative to other western countries and every government has to assess just how many it is practical to take, things like employement opportunities and accommodation needing to be taken into account, not to mention all manner of services that many of us find harder and harder to get let alone afford.

Seeking refuge and asylum may be a right but that does not mean there has to be automatic acceptance either and it is not a crime to want to thoroughly examine claims and decide on rejection or not.

At the end of the day, the people with money bypassing refugees without funds is a form of bullying, be it on the international scene.
Do you support bullying? and how do you feel about that African woman possibly missing a limb and attempting to keep a young child alive for is her situation perhaps not more dire than the many young seemingly whole and healthy males we continually see being offloaded at Xmas Island.

Bloggs says:

11:40am | 21/03/11

Dear Rachel,

These people come here illegally instead of staying behind near their home to help rebuild it.  If they have such little compassion for their homeland, how much will they have for ours?

The answer is already available to see on the streets.  it is of course, very little.

We are sending our children to fight on their behalf in their homeland.  My own son included.  So whilst we try to help make their homeland safe, they desert it.  Why should we be helping them out in any way, shape or form?

Our Government provides money to the Taliban to try to rehabilitate them.  What another load of waste.

Jane says:

01:59pm | 21/03/11

Completely agree Rachel. I am actually disgusted at some of the comments. How would everyone here feel if they were the one’s being persecuted. We sit here and say ‘they should know there is a station here that they can register at etc’ How exactly do people expect them to know that? With their wind ranging access to the internet?? People are failing to see that these families are being persecuted by the boat smugglers who sell a desperate situation to them so they feel the need to pay to escape persecution.

Have a heart people…

Bloggs says:

03:47pm | 21/03/11

@Jane

Rubbish.  people smuggling is a business, not a persecution.  These illegal people have the people smuggling costs all budgeted, know well ina dvance what it is they have to pay and the Indonesian authorities help them out because they don’t want them either.

Geez, you’re gullible if you believe that BS.  Go an live with these people for a few years and see if you feel the same on your return.  I have so I speak with authority borne of experience.  How much experience do you have?  None? Thought so.

Scarneck says:

06:48pm | 21/03/11

Rachel - I agree but sadly most of the commentators on this blog are ignorant xenophobic hansonites. I hope none of them ever live next door to me….but my door is open to anyone of these boat people.

Jude of Brisbane says:

08:16am | 22/03/11

Rachel what about the poor buggers sitting in refugee camps for years taking their turn and because they don’t have the money or the means will probably die in them.  Your misguided sympathy with these mainly fit and healthy young men is what is sickening.  They should be home fighting for their countries, not whimping it out here.  They are even more sickening.

Gregg says:

10:39am | 21/03/11

@Paul,
I do not know that there will be many who would doubt the attrocities of the Taliban and it is up to individuals what they believe or not as far as individual recounting of situations go.

The Afghan you know may be a fine guy and in fact we had Aghans coming to Australia over a century ago and hence the Ghan train, it’s name coming from Aghans who drove camel trains befor sealed roads or a railway between Port Augusta and Darwin.
It is great that he has settled in as it would be for any refugee.

What is not so great though, is that if he paid to come across on a boat from Indonesia or otherwise used the people smuggling route, he has taken the place of some poorer soul sitting somewhere in a refugee camp.
So he may be legally an Australian, may have even taken out citizenship but on the Aussie fair go standard he’ll never be an Australian for as long as he lives.

LeftRightOut says:

10:47am | 21/03/11

There are certainly many refugees who have horror stories, some real, some fake…destroying one’s documents makes it harder to tell, which is more than likely the whole point, that and a loophole in the outdated UNHCR rules/laws.
I don’t think a single person here would dispute taking someone like that into the community, but when you look at the big picture (not an individual’s circumstance) you have to have a workable policy, the current one is not. Letting these people into the community without checks, is not an option either.
It’s very difficult for refugee advocates to argue that all asylum seekers are genuine, when [nearly] all of them destroy their documents, they do this intentionally, they simply could not make it to anywhere near Australia without them. It’s a very tough topic, and one that’s too easily overrun with the “racist” labels.
We cannot send back any of these violent protestors, or at least for their behavior, but you can understand why Joe citizen doesn’t feel comfortable with these people moving in next door. A unpalatable as it may be, Howard’s policy was successful, and should be restored.

Mikeymike says:

05:32pm | 21/03/11

I don’t have a problem with refugees.  I welcome them.  I think Australia should open their arms to them and provide as many opportunities to them to get back on their feet and live with dignity.
I don’t agree that boat arrivals should be allowed to stay at the expense of the poor person at the front of the queue in their camp.  This is queue jumping.  This is unfair to that person in their camp.  Should this be their first experience of Australia’s “fair go?”  I think not.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

06:42pm | 21/03/11

For heaven’s sake we don’t get to break the law again because of racist morons.

The people in the camps do not have the right to be resettled, we are literlly giving a second home to queue jumpers and double dippers while denying any home to the homeless who ask us for help.

Why do we endlessly try and find ways to abuse innocent people and break the law to appease the losers?

Why not just tell the fucking truth.

Markus says:

11:16am | 21/03/11

You know who else comes from horrific situations and have had lives filled with tragedy and fear?
The people who have followed UNHCR protocol and are currently residing in a UN camp awaiting relocation.
People whose relocation wait time is extended every time a load of people are illegally shipped here from Indonesia and take spots from our annual refugee intake.
People who don’t go burning down their accommodation because they aren’t happy with the wait time, a wait time directly attributed to their inability to provide identification.
Where is your compassion for them?

JT says:

11:23am | 21/03/11

Patsy says ‘‘These people are human beings - they have come from horrific situations and have had lives filled with tragedy and fear. What about showing a bit of compassion?’‘’

Prove it. I see healthy looking people wearing decent clothing: http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/04/10/1225852/241037-asylum-seekers.jpg as opposed to these DRC refugees http://www.delaus.ec.europa.eu/images/refugees.jpg carrying their meager possessions.

I think the key issue that destroys any argument you and any other so called Refugee Humanitarian give is the fact you spend so much effort writing about your meal ticket, sorry I mean these Asylum seekers and never once mention the fact that Australia accepts an annual quota, that quota is more or less fixed. This means for every economic asylum seeker we take, a true refugee who makes it to a UNHCR camp misses out. You want to truly help? you would promote policies that stop the boats and allow us to take more people directly from these camps. But there’s not really any money or publicity to be made from that is there?

Patsy says:

11:44am | 21/03/11

It isn’t a competition of who is more worthy Markus! Those people should also be shown compassion. It isn’t and either/or situation. Don’t believe the false argument that we have to choose!

Gregg says:

12:09pm | 21/03/11

@Patsy
” they have come from horrific situations and have had lives filled with tragedy and fear. “
You have full detailed knowledge of every case do you Patsy.

And so should we just allow people with money bulldoze their way in, taking the places of people quite likely in more extreme situations.
If you want to know who they may be, think of the 15M or so refugees in UNHCR camps, often surviving in tents in apalling conditions, maybe missing a limb or two, perhaps a raped young girl pregnant or with a young child near death.

They are humans too Patsy, and in much more dire circumstances I would expect than it would seem whole reasonably healthy looking mainly younger men appear to be when regularly disembarking from boats.

There is no ignorance nor offence in indicating some home truths.
In actual fact Patsy, you may agree that there could in deed be many refugees in far more need because of naturual disasters.

Dingo says:

04:31pm | 21/03/11

Patsy, there are 21 million people who “have come from horrific situations and have had lives filled with tragedy and fear.”

Australia accepts a larger number of refugees per capita than any other nation in the world except Canada. But this number is pre-budgeted, we don’t add to this number every time a boat arrives.

If you allow people who arrive by boat to access those places you encourage more people to try. 300 people (that we know of) have drowned at sea trying since the Gillard/Rudd Govt sent the message arriving by boat will get you into Australia. 50 have been smashed to death in front of numerous innocent by-standers.

Your naive position is only increasing human horror, tragedy and fear without increasing the number of refugees Australia helps.

marley says:

05:49pm | 21/03/11

@Dingo - your statement that Australia accepts a larger number of refugees than any country per capita is incorrect.  We accept a larger number of people per capita in our offshore resettlement program, but if you look at the figures for both onshore refugees, we are well down the list- nowhere close to Canada, for example.

Gran says:

11:29pm | 21/03/11

Paysy there are apprx 5000 people in detentions at present, 4000 single young men between 17 and 23 years old,the goverment are going to start bringing them to the main land and house them in the suberbs untill they are processed one way or the other,when these men are roaming the streets near you all hours of the day and running amock around your family lets see how much comassion you have for them then,the UNHCh have ads on tv showing starving kids with flys all over them in horrific camps they are asking for money to help these people ,send these men back to where they came from and lets demand these kids be taken to Christmas Island,there familys won’t burn the place down and they wouldn’t care how long they stayed there’ they would have food a bed to sleep in they would treat the place like heaven,thats where compassion should start and end not with people that have shown they should be on the first plane back to where they came from,f

Gregg says:

02:49pm | 21/03/11

@Dominic
One gigantic If there mate
” If want refugees to be full and productive members of society, “
It is a case of whether the people arriving by boat from Indonesia are in fact to meet refugee requirements and get security clearances.

If a person is a refugee, there are many UNHCR centres where they could register as a refugee.

Most Australians do not want people here who are forcing their way to the head of the queue by coming to the back door.
That may have been an acceptable standard in some countries but it is not for here in Australia.

Feel free to pass that along as something of Australian values.
If you do not like it and have come from another country and can return, perhaps you will want to consider doing so.

Gregg says:

12:46pm | 21/03/11

@Casey,
Good to see you at least use the word majority but do have a look at the real facts and you may be more outraged with our government’s performance than ashamed.

I feel ashamed myself on how the government is abandoning true refugees in favour of poor policy that had led them down the path they have decided upon, a path mind you that is seeing people die needlessly.

Casey says:

01:30pm | 21/03/11

@Gregg. Interesting you assume I haven’t had a look at the real facts. Is that because I’m supporting Alex’s argument and not yours? I know the situation quite well in fact, having worked in refugee camps and been rather outspoken on the issue in Australia.

I am also ashamed of the government’s performance (though less ashamed than Howard’s performance), but call for a more humane approach than many of today’s commenters are shouting for.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

01:43pm | 21/03/11

Casey

what about the majority of Australians?

Would you be happy to see this put to a referendum? ‘‘Should Australia remove itself from the UN Convention on Refugees’’ ? 
 
Bear in mind, this would mean that we could target real refugees, rather than welfare shoppers, for resettlement.

Gregg says:

02:08pm | 21/03/11

@Casey
” I know the situation quite well in fact, having worked in refugee camps and been rather outspoken on the issue in Australia. “
So then Casey, what is your basis for supporting people smuggling to be encouraged, so that the numbers of people being selected from refugee camps is reduced.
That is what it comes down to and you should well know of the misery of many in refugee camps, undernourished dying babies, women raped and/or maimed etc.
Howard brought the numbers using people smugglers down to very few and our humanitarian program could work to help all those in need from refugee situations.

So for you it also comes down to why you would support people with money as against those without and why would you encourage people to make a sea trip in boats that could well lead to their death.

TheRealDave says:

03:06pm | 21/03/11

Xenephobic - check
Racist - check
Elitist - check
Redneck- ??

Umm…Casey, you missed one.

fml says:

03:40pm | 21/03/11

@Tony,

Prove to us this is what the majority of australians want? 60 % of 100 hundred or so comments on the punch, mostly repeats, does not mean YOU are in the majority.

Firstly, having a referendum would have a disastrous effect on our international standing, i know that doesnt mean much for a proud nationalist like you, but once countries decide to stop trading with us, then its going to hit your wallet, unfortunately i dont think you realise international trade is based on good foreign relations, heck thats why the government has a job for it.

Secondly, if this was infact what most australians want, why isnt the government reflecting this? now this could be for one of two reasons, one the government see how it will affect our international standing or two they dont think they will be able to use this as a platform to get re-elected. Either way suggesting that this is not what the majority of Australian’s want. This issue has been around for years, why has it not been implemented yet? Why did we get rid of the White Australia Policy?

I dont want a referendum, one because its a massive waste of money, two because of the unperceived effect it will have on our international relations, three we would look to the world that we are shirking our responsibility in the world.

Is national pride an introspective view of ones own country?, is it important how the rest of the world view your country? and damn to the international consequences, or, Is it being proud of your country because of its record of compassion, freedom and fight for the good of the world?

Bloggs says:

03:57pm | 21/03/11

I bet you say that in the Mosque on Friday’s too! 

Sorry for being so xenophobic, but racist? No.  Elitist? No.  just an average Australian that sees his lifestyle and country under threat from differing cultures that come here but refuse to integrate and adapt to Australia but prefer to live like they did at home and who bring their own brand of xenophobia with them.

Remember what this word means:
Xenophobia: hatred or fear of foreigners or strangers or of their politics or culture.

Note that it means hatred OR fear.  For by far the most of us, we do not hate these people and understand perhaps their motives.  But we do fear them, greatly.  You would be wise to go live with them for a few years and then return here.  Then we can discuss this on even terms.  I fear their culture for a very good set of reasons.  Until you learn about their cultures properly, you are just a dreamer with rose coloured glasses on.

Casey says:

04:29pm | 21/03/11

@ Gregg - if your logic assumes that my preference of a humane approach to the treatment of irregular maritime arrivals means my endorsement of people smuggling, then I’m not sure we have much to discuss. One of course not does mean the other.

I support the onshore processing system and increasing the number of refugees we resettle through that programme. As you may know, that programme is only available in the countries where nation states allow UNHCR to operate them. As such Gregg there is no “queue” for some people to join.

Also Gregg, how’s your history? Just 30 years ago Pol Pot murdered a quarter of the Cambodian population - and who did he target? The wealthy and educated. It is simply incorrect and stupid to assume the wealthy are incapable of being persecuted.

@Tony - your pseudonym makes no attempt to hide your racism.  More than 90% of those who arrive in Australian shores by boat are found to be real refugees. Though I’m sure that hardly matters to you.

Casey says:

04:37pm | 21/03/11

@Blogg - if your reference to mosques means you are targetting your xenophobia toward Muslims, than yes, I have actually lived in a Muslim country. I worked in development in a Muslim country. A very poor and overpopulated one with overcrowded and rund own refugee camps. Refugee camps that 17 year old children were born in and have never left. 17 year old children who have very little hope of ever leaving. So my opinions on this issue are based on an understanding of the issues from where they originate.

And yours?

Surely your fears can be overcome through a little education? Maybe even a little cultural exchange? Have you attended any of the multicultural events in your city? This might be a great way for you (and other xenophobes) to free yourselves of that fear.

mikeymike says:

05:47pm | 21/03/11

So Casey, let me put this to you, having worked in development and with refugees:
A refugee comes to you and says they will not wait any more, they will try their luck on a boat to Australia.  What do you say?
“Great idea!”  Or “Don’t do it!”

Niel says:

01:11pm | 21/03/11

Thank you Anna C, you put your comment so plainly and succinctly you have helped me finally make up my mind.
I can NOT possibly live in a country with people who openly hold such pretentious, self righteous and ignorant views. Therefore I have decided to migrate to somewhere - anywhere - that doesn’t expect another human being to “kiss our feet in gratitude” .
I’d also like to thank Scott Morrison for all his preliminary work leading up to my decision.

Gregg says:

01:55pm | 21/03/11

I agree with Anna Niel and no need to send Anna, scott or myself any postcards.
You talk of ignorance but what of refugees suffering in UNHCR camps and if you have the means to go elsewhere, good on ya mate.

Erick says:

02:31pm | 21/03/11

Good riddance, Niel. Hopefully a genuine refugee from one of the camps will take your place.

un-PC says:

03:01pm | 21/03/11

@ Niel - Bon Voyage, mate.  Take a few illegals with you, please.

;o) says:

07:24pm | 21/03/11

Anna Im with you !00% well said my dear good minds think alike its easy for these do gooders to call us the racist or Xenephob to my mind thats such a cheap shot at reverse racisim.  lets stay with the facts and remove all emotion.

Drunk Guy says:

09:01am | 22/03/11

Neil, if Anna uses the term “Spit on our Generosity” as a description for rioting, burning down buildings attacking guards and making the residents of that island fear for their lives, then one could rightly assume her description of “Kiss our feet in gratitude” probably means become members of our society, obey our rules and laws, integrate with us and be productive. Of course you already knew that, I honestly don’t think you’ll find a better place to live where the people are more tollerent and can , as you have done, exercise their right to speak their mind, good luck.

Gregg says:

01:51pm | 21/03/11

Stephanie,
First off, the people seeking asylum are not being imprisoned for any criminal activity, even though supporting the use of the illegal trade of people smuggling could be questionable.
Just like any country exercising border control Australian authorities have a right to detain people who arrive at their borders, even people arriving by air with a valid visa being subject to questioning where there may be suspicion held and that could be for a number of reasons.
In such cases, people are often detained and put back on a flight to where they came from.
You can read all about various immigration practices at http://www.immi.gov.au

The situation with people arriving via boat from Indonesia is a bit different:
. no visas, often no identity documentation, possibly limited or zero english and no knowledge of health or any personal matters etc.
Some people may think the latter is trivial but there have been several cases of contagious diseases passed on.

Australia does have limited Immigration and Security organisation resources, these being normally adequate to handle immigration through normal channels, even though there are lengthy processing times for many visa applications.
The drain on resources is already causing significant effect on fee paying visa applicants adhering to regulations and personally I would ask as to why they should be made to suffer for the sake of people not adhering to the proper way.

The outcome for the latter is that they do have to wait until they have their asylum applications processed and to start with there needs to be some way of verifying their identity and then security checks etc. are required, that likely a lengthy task because of lack of, scant or even false information that may be provided.

The 1/3 people you mention could have decided to do the proper thing and register with the UNHCR and wait their turn for resettlement as do all the refugees globally who apply for resettlement and that would have had them avoiding detention but while individual situations have to be determined with questionable information to go on, such people will be detained and if it is in prison like grounds, so be it for they chose the back door rather than being up front.

They are far more comfortably accommodated than refugees in tent cities in various locations.

Richard says:

06:42pm | 21/03/11

But stephanie, that’s exactly why the previous government instilled Temporary Protection Visas (TPV’s), so that no one was in danger of being “sentenced to death or brutal violence”, yet the incentives and pull factors that were attracting the opportunistic country shoppers were removed.

And it worked very successfully. You say that imprisonment has damning effects, well under the previous government there was a grand total of about one man and his dog in detention by the time the policy had filtered through and taken effect.

And then this extreme left-wing socialist government took over and now we have closer to ten thousand poor bastards in detention. Honestly, the system under the previous government was not broken. Then the current government came along and decided that even though it ain’t broke we’ll try to fix it, and they ruined it. They are a useless group of clowns, and half of my fellow Australians were extremely stupid to vote them in for a second term.

marley says:

01:38pm | 21/03/11

The Convention includes race, religion, nationality and political belief.  It was, after all, written after the end of a massive war in which these were the primary causes for refugee movements.  So, yes, it’s outdated.  There is nothing, however, forcing countries to limit their refugee determination processes to those criteria - many countries accept that persecution for reasons of sexual preference (homosexuals, for example) or gender (women subject to genital mutilation in Africa) are also grounds for granting asylum.

The UN has to deal with the reality of the Convention, and it knows that it can’t reopen the Convention because it would be such a can of worms to do so.  That doesn’t stop it, or Amnesty, pushing for “complementary protection” for deserving situations outside the strict parameters of the Convention.  And one program, to which Australia most certainly subscribes, is the “Women at Risk” program in which women (and their children) deemed by the UNHCR to be at particular risk, are given top priority for offshore resettlement.

So,  while it may not be possible to rewrite the Convention, the UN is certainly doing what it can to provide the needed protection to those who aren’t specifically covered by its literal provisions.  I’d say, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater - support the UN for what it does do, and push for Australia and other countries to cover the gaps.

Judicus says:

10:32am | 22/03/11

The UN hasn’t got a clue on these things, and Australia should just opt out and tell them to go to hell.  They of course won’t, but they should.  Some of you people need to have a good look at who is on these boats that are arriving (maritime arrivals my foot, they’re the boats/ships that come into this country legally).  The majority of them are fit young men who don’t have enough guts to stay and fight for the country they have left.  They have sailed past other countries they could have gone to if they were serious refugees, but they’re not.  They know this country is full of bleeding hearts who will give them what they want, when they want it and while they are at it sell out all that has been good about Australia to make sure the new arrivals feel at home.  I feel like leaving this country too, but not because of the so called racists and rednecks, but because it is being taken over by naive bleeding hearts who are giving up the soul of this country that many of our young men died for in world wars.  I despair that this government hasn’t got a clue how to responsibly manage refugees by discouraging illegal boat people as opposed to getting women and children out of refugee camps that they have been in for many years and will be for many more because of the queue jumpers - and make no mistake, that is exactly what they are.

Cuppa says:

02:37pm | 21/03/11

Ha Ha, well said Anna, i couldnt agree more!!

Bloggs says:

04:30pm | 21/03/11

That’s probably the best suggestion listed here.

My fgather came into Asutralia at the end of WWII.  He was paid nothign by the Government.  He had to get a job and earned 6 pounds a week in a factory.  With that he saved and brought the rest of us out from Europe.  he worked his whole life, as I have done.  I have paid Asutralian taxes for 45 years now and continue to do so.

People who work hard and do not threaten the Laws fo Australia are welcome even to my xenophobic self.

How many of these people are in that list? Far too few.  The idea of an Ellis Island approach is sound.  But I fear teh do-gooders on this blog would campaign for them to receive free housing and food and money just like they do now.

Matt says:

11:58am | 22/03/11

Then pass on these comments when you get to where you’re going and forward them to the people smuggling networks in Indonesia, Scarneck. Problem solved.

marley says:

07:29am | 22/03/11

Australia, with a population of 22 million,  gets 5 or 6000 asylum seekers a year.  Canada, with a population of 33 million, gets 25 or 30,000.  They seem to manage the process without either mandatory detention or histrionics.  Why can’t we?

Rex Jones says:

07:32pm | 21/03/11

Couldn’t agree with you more Melissa. Too many people on this forum don’t seem to have considered for one second what it would be like to walk in these people’s shoes? The bottom line is if these asylum seekers came from an anglo-saxon country we would have no issues letting them in.

Richard says:

08:30pm | 21/03/11

Well you could be right Rex Jones, because there are a lot of white South Africans and Rhodesians that have made a new life in Australia, all though I would posit that they all applied through the official channels and followed our laws and due processes instead of just rocking up and expecting the red carpet treatment (and then rioting when they don’t get there own way).

But the objective fact is that there are infinitely more refugees from asian, middle eastern and african descent than their are anglo saxons. So we have to impose limits, we can’t accept all 30 million refugees in the world, or however many there are. There must be a cap on the amount of refugees we accept and resettle.

And then the next logical question after that is, who are the most deserving asylum seekers: those ones who are genuinely in dire danger and suffering from terrible conditions in ad hoc refugee camps, or rich country shoppers who paid there way to barge in to the front of the queue?

I have followed logic Rex Jones and raised a number of valid concerns, you have just made a knee jerk emotive response to what is in reality a more complex issue than you are portraying it to be. Do you care to debate this with me and justify your position or will you continue to stand manifestly discredited?

rex jones says:

10:25pm | 21/03/11

Richard - where is this ‘queue’ that people keep mentioning? Should we send back a family of Tamils simply because they didn’t join this queue? Most refugees wouldn’t even be aware there was an orderly process - they just make do with the options they have - some have access to normal channels but some don’t. If you and your family had managed to escape persecution and were presented with the option of getting to Australia by boat as opposed to sitting in a refugee camp for years - what would you do?? p.s. - just how many white south african refugees have we taken on?

Chandra says:

07:37am | 22/03/11

@ Melissa, sometimes there is no “queue” to jump from. For example, Afghan asylum seekers can’t wait in line while their refugee application is being processed because there is no standard refugee process in Afghanistan. Given this fact, if I was living to constant fear or my life or my family’s, I would do anything to save us, and that includes selling everything I own to get on a boat.

@ Richard: Firstly, Australia’s refugee intake is minuscule compared to other developed nations. In 2009, about 8,500 people sought asylum in Australia compared to +45,000 And yes, we can surely accommodate more refugees.

Secondly, why do you think they’re country shoppers? Name me countries that are parties to the refugee convention between here and the Middle East?

Richard says:

08:12am | 22/03/11

The queue is an administrative one within the department of Immigration. The pace at which those bureaucrats work is excruciatingly slow, and every new arrival of boat people that paid their way to get smuggled here illegally sets back the processing of deserving migrants that much further.

Yes, I think we should refuse entry to a family of Tamils if they just try to barge in and impose themselves on us. There is an Australian consulate in Indonesia, there is an Australian consulate in Malaysia, there is an Australian consulate in India. Nothing is preventing Asylum seekers, once they have escaped from the immediate threat of violence, from then doing the right thing and applying through the department of immigration like everyone else. If they refuse to use this common courtesy then I think they should be given TPV’s.

And its a rubbish argument to say that I would do it too if I was in their shoes. I would also rob a bank if I thought I could get away with it: I’m as self-interested as the next bloke. But that doesn’t mean the manager of the bank has to roll out the red carpet for me when I storm into his branch wearing a ski mask toting a sawn off shotgun.

As for your p.s.~ How do I know? I don’t work for the dept. of Immigration. I did have a flatmate from zimbabwe though a few years ago whose father had his head hacked off with machetes by a mob of black thugs for the “crime” of being a white owner of productive farmland… I don’t begrudge him Australian residency one bit, but I do appreciate him for applying through the department of Immigration instead of just rocking up in a boat and demanding to be taken care of.

Jude of Brisbane says:

08:19am | 22/03/11

Melissa I’d like to think that if you were a fit healthy Afghan male (like most of these people are) that you would have the intestinal fortitude to stay in your country and fight for it, rather than expecting our young Australians to do it for you.  They are gutless queue jumpers most of them, nothing more and nothing less.  If they love the traditions of their country so much, including the lack of democracy, then let them stay their, join the Afghan Army and fight for it.  You bleeding hearts are sickening.

Bloggs says:

08:05am | 22/03/11

Good point, Rex.  How much extra do these non-integrating Muslim welfare sucking illegals cost us?  heaps extra.

Agreed out own dole bludgers are an issue - but that’s not the issue here.

Migrants who contribute are not a problem.  It’s the ones who don’t contribute; who receive a pension, one for each wife, a house for each wife, hardship allowances and more, and never have to work, and don’t.  These ones are the problem.

And please compare that payment set to these non-integrating religious fanatics to what is paid to our old age pensioners who have contributed taxes for their whole working lives…....

Therein lies the guts if the issues.

Jude of Brisbane says:

10:36am | 22/03/11

So Helen what do we do?  Just let them in, throw away our immigration policy, give them what they want, when they want it and say how high when they say jump, which is exactly what they are doing on Christmas Island now.  Get some sense.  Those with hatred can shove right off to where they came from.  Maybe they can use a bit of that hatred fighting to protect their own country instead of our young men dying while they are doing it for them???