Under attack on both fronts on asylum seekers

Jane says:

11:55am | 26/10/10

TPV’s

Ryan says:

11:59am | 26/10/10

Here is your answer.. Temporary Protection Visas, no chance of permanent residency or citizenship. This is humane. The Canadians just introduced them, I wonder why.

Richard says:

12:08pm | 26/10/10

Its well and good for you to ask dissenters to keep their comments to themselves, but the fact is that this problem is entirely the making of the Labor government: John Howard already solved the problem of boats coming. Labor dismantled that solution and so now we have this problem again (and its getting worse). For you to then turn around and say “keep your comments to yourself” is pretty rich.

I’m sure Mao Zedong would have liked (well in fact he actually tried to force) people who criticised his regime after the failure of the cultural revolution to keep their comments to themselves, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the disaster was entirely of his own making, in much the same way as the asylum seeker problem is entirely of the Labor regime’s making.

In terms of offering a suggestion for how to deal with the problem? Well I think its obvious that TPV’s work, and need be reinstated ASAP. With this policy in place to stem the influx of new arrivals, the department of immigration should be able to get around to processing the existing claims eventually, but the government does need to stick a good lightning bolt up their collective arses and get them to hurry the f up.

As far as government bureacracies go the bar isn’t set very high, but even still, the Dept. of Immigration would have to be the slowest, most inefficient pack of bludgers out of the lot.

Joan says:

12:27pm | 26/10/10

I suggest they come and stay with you and your relatives..after issue of TPV

marley says:

12:50pm | 26/10/10

@ryan - actually, you’re wrong about Canada.  They’ve introduced a bill which would place people on temporary visas for five years, after which they will be eligible for permanent residence and citizenship.

And by the way, Canada does not and never has had mandatory detention.  The vast majority of asylum seekers who arrive in Canada are fingerprinted and released into the community almost immediately.  There’s your alternative to detention centers.

Gregg says:

01:11pm | 26/10/10

There is something called freedom of speech left in this country for now Jenni.
As to ” solution to the problem ” , we could either talk in plural or with sub sets, perhaps even both.
1. People will continue to use people smugglers as long as an inner spring mattress is provided for a soft landing.
Despite it not being illegal to apply for asylum, a number of problems present:
. deaths at sea
. risks to naval/customs/detention centre personnel from disease and/or break outs which could have potential for a broader impact.
2. And then we have refugee/structural problems:
. refugees in centres/camps of many locations under UNHCR and other NGOs having opportunities fro resettlement curtailed, potentially taken by those with money.
. and yes, the processing without the structure associated with involvement with the UNHCR system will have a higher cost, our legal system likely to get very clogged very quickly.
. already, the immigration and other resources being required are affecting the processing of normal visas, visas that often take people years to get granted and for which there are substantial fees, many of those visas being for people with skills that have been assessed as able to quickly contribute to reducing our skills shortages.
3. And the flow on effect:
. Sure, on a figure of 5000/y it would nominally take 20 years to fill the MCG.
Current number for this year already exceeds 5000 and over 100 boats.
The numbers dramatically increased again from 2008 when the Labor government removed Temporary Protection Visas.
. If the growth in numbers trend continues upwards both the MCG and Olympic Stadium could well be filled a lot quicker.
. Will they keep coming? , and of course they will when the message keeps going back that we’ve never had it so good, a bed an allowance, free food, free everything and just have to be patient until you get released.
. How long will it be before this message spreads further?, perhaps bigger ship loads coming across the Indian Ocean from Africa!
500 Sri Lankans were on board the freighter that got to Canada.
So how many is too many?
How do bulk numbers of mainly young men get well assimilated into communities?

So yes, realistic solutions are needed.
. Very first is to reinvole the TPVs
. Second is that no asylum seeker gets brought to the mainland
. If tented accommodation is needed as an interim solution on Xmas Island, so be it, tents are what are used in refugee camps.
. Discussions should take place immediately with the UNHCR on whether they want to set up a refugee centre somewhere between Australia and the Asian mainland, accepted by a country to have the UNHCR running the centre and one that takes people from boats intercepted at sea.

The message will be sent that if you are wanting to claim asylum you go to the nearest refugee centre country you can most easily access.
There are already many on the sub continent and in Asia.
It is UNHCR policy to have refugee centres as close as possible to if not in countries with conflict.

The orderly structured process of refugees applying for governments resettlement and organisations/individuals seeking to sponsor people through humanitarium programs can continue and demand on resources and communities will be reduced.

The alternative is going to be a continued trend towards mayhem.

MarK says:

02:30pm | 26/10/10

Yeh Marley and then they can’t find them again gg that

marley says:

02:57pm | 26/10/10

@MarK - oh, they find most of them.  They’ve been fingerprinted, after all, so they can’t just disappear into the woodwork and still expect to get welfare benefits.  And of course they have the right to work, so the taxpayer isn’t necessarily on the hook for all of them.  The ones who do disappear mostly end up in the US, which is of course not a situation that could happen here.

Interestingly, the acceptance rate for asylum seekers in Canada is lower than it is in Australia - so an asylum seeker may get a couple of years free run in Canada, but is a lot more likely to be deported, than a boat person who arrives here. 

You be the judge of which is ultimately the better system (not to mention the cheaper one).

Gregg says:

03:07pm | 26/10/10

@marley,
They also have an agreement with the US re asylum seeker claims at the land border and so that leaves air/boat arrivals and likely very few.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/index.asp
If their numbers p.a. start pushing upwards towards 10,000 and whatever the sea may hold, they might well review their laws I’d imagine.

marley says:

03:36pm | 26/10/10

@Gregg - Canada would just love it if it “only” got 10,000 asylum seekers in a year. 

In 2009, it got 33,000 asylum claims.  That, by the way, was a 10% decrease on the previous year, but pretty much in line with the annual number of claimants over the last 15 years or so.  That compares with 6300 or so asylum claims in Australia last year. 

The Canadians have a lot more experience with asylum seekers than Australia has ever had.  And while Canada does detain some asylum seekers, it has never had any sort of mandatory detention policy.  And you know what?  The country hasn’t collapsed.

acotrel says:

09:30pm | 26/10/10

Here ‘s something really stupid. Why don’t we simply help all of them assimilate into Australian society, and encourage them to live in our empty country towns?

Gregg says:

03:19am | 27/10/10

Yes Marley,
I’m wondering at the make-up of their figures and you may well too after posting
” Interestingly, the acceptance rate for asylum seekers in Canada is lower than it is in Australia - so an asylum seeker may get a couple of years free run in Canada, but is a lot more likely to be deported, than a boat person who arrives here.  “

Perhaps the difference is that more arrive in Canada by plane and strange that they would release them too quick without thorough security and health checks, especially the former given global terrorism.

marley says:

08:13am | 27/10/10

@Gregg - if you believe that it is possible to do adequate security checks on people whose identity you aren’t certain of, well, I think you’re being very optimistic.  Neither Australia with its detention system, nor Canada with its more open system, can ever be sure exactly who they’re dealing with if the person arrives undocumented.  There is simply no way to confirm identity, or even nationality, of asylum seekers unless there’s a record of them in another western country.

The Canadians do security screen, of course, and do health screen as well - but frankly, neither process should take more than a few days, given that the former is never going to be conclusive and that the latter involves a straightforward medical exam and handful of tests. 

So my question is, if the end result is that everyone in the detention system is going to get refugee status anyway, why go to the expense of detention for prolonged periods?  Cheaper to release them into the community. 

As to the make up of the movement into Canada, mostly plane and overland though there’ve been a few boats of late.  But I don’t see that that makes much of a difference, since half the time one still doesn’t know who one is dealing with.  A lot of the plane arrivals are travelling on faked documents, or have flushed their passports down the airplane toilets, and a lot of the overland arrivals sneak across the border undocumented and just pop up in Canada and make their asylum claims. I don’t really get why it would make a difference how they arrive - they’ve virtually all been in the hands of smugglers at some point.

Gregg says:

01:45pm | 27/10/10

Marley,
The question is not so much how much better the Canadians may or may not handle security, health and other issues, their mix of nationalities/numbers and how they arrived etc. perhaps having something to do with their decision making, but what needs to be done in our own backyard given we currently have a policy that is encouraging people smugglers to provide a service to people prepared to bypass the structured refugee system that has been in place for many years with the UNHCR.

It is very simple really and we have had a well controlled and managed humane approach with both refugees selected from applications and others selected through sponsorship by organisations and individuals there being actual visas needing to be applied for and the appropriate checks and examinations made, people coming from situations of desperate need.

People smuggling is allowing a controlled and humane approach to be demolished by people with money, no knowledge of how it was attained and obviously a questionable approach to the laws that go along with a structured orderly society.
Yes it is going to be difficult in many cases to assess their backgrounds but given they are jumping the queue, lets detain them and send them back.
Quite a few are actually having claims rejected, hence the breakout as a protest in Darwin.
Putting 1600 of such blokes together on the mainland is going to be real fun! but if the message starts to go back that its going to be years and years of detention and then a rejection, perhaps that is a start to heading the refugee ship back on to course.

marley says:

06:05pm | 27/10/10

@Gregg -  I’m quite well aware of the balance Australia has in its refugee program, and I’m all in favour of putting a lot more emphasis on offshore rather than onshore selection.  I’ve actually been in a few refugee camps (years ago, admittedly) and know what those people have to endure.  While they sit in the allegedly non-existent queue.

But, and here’s my point, mandatory detention isn’t a deterrent, and never was.  The Pacific Solution was a deterrent, not to the refugees, but to the smugglers.  No smugglers, not boats, no arrivals.  The problem is, though, that once someone actually arrives on a boat, he has a 90% chance of being accepted.  That’s ludicrous.

The emphasis is in the wrong area.  Forget mandatory detention. Tighten up the assessment process - make it faster and more rigorous - and get people out in a matter of weeks instead of years.  And the smugglers will look elsewhere for their profits.

Richard says:

12:13pm | 26/10/10

I think you are mistaken nosthow to assume that the current rate of arrivals will always stay constant. For example, at the rate of arrivals under the Howard government 3 years ago, it would have taken about 20 000 years to fill MCG. Any intelligent observer can see that the rate of arrivals is increasing and picking up pace and the current Labor government hasn’t put any policies in place to slow down the rate of acceleration in illegal arrivals so I don’t see why it won’t continue increasing in pace until we have an MCG’s worth of illegal arrivals coming every year. There are millions of poor starving hungry refugees in the world you know.

Ben81 says:

01:54pm | 26/10/10

Good one nosthow, keep trivialising the issue.  I can’t for the life of me understand what it is you’re so upset about, and how it can be any more than politics to you. 
I mean is your position seriously that we allow people smuggling to continue unchecked, with the result that thousands of people risk their lives trying to get here on a dodgy boat, and we keep thousands of people in immigration detention instead of taking in just as many refugees responsibly?  How many more people have to die before you change your mind?  Do you not understand that there’s many tens of millions of people we have no choice but to say “no” to and the current situation isn’t doing anything to help refugees or guarantee our resources are being used effectively?  Do you just not give a shit about all of that and are more concerned with about vindicating John Howard?

It’s also Interesting that you direct all your vitriol at the Liberals who succcessfully achieved what Labor is now desperately trying to achieve now that they’re in government and have realised they were plain wrong to bring us back to this situation.

Ben81 says:

02:13pm | 26/10/10

Uh I mean “with vindicating”, not “with about vindicating”.

Randal says:

02:39pm | 26/10/10

nosthow, if its only the ‘evil’ Liberals that are concerned about boat arrivals why then did Gillard make this a key policy platform when she knifed Rudd, in fact this was such a major issue that it required a regional response and in her own words she said she planned:

“...to wreck the people smuggling trade by removing the incentive for boats to leave their ports of origin in the first place…”

Sounds a lot like the beginning of a plan to “stop the boats” to me, or was that perhaps the ‘pretend Julia’ speaking, although not much of a plan really, how many boats have we now have this 108… there are so many I lose count.

Then in the nasty archives of the past, what did our delightful PM have to say about these ‘handful of asylum seekers’ in 2002 when she bragged about writing the then ALP’s “turn the boats back” policy, well let’s see:

“I was shadow minister for immigration and developed the policy which remains Labor’s policy now”

How can this be nosthow, I thought being mean to asylum seekers was just a Liberal ploy… Yet right at the top of ALP ranks we have the PM now and in the past telling us the same words that you call ‘red necked’... Ah the hypocrisy of the left, you pick up whistles and scream red necks, cruel, racists at the Liberals, yet your own hum the same tune and you are strangely silent.

What sad individuals you and your left wing cronies are nosthow, now quickly back to your masters you little ALP staffer and ask them how best to respond… I am betting silence as the truth is something that anyone who works for the ALP simply struggles deal with, no wonder the polls are running 52-48 against you and your primary vote has hit 33%, you lot simply stand for nothing.

Charles says:

06:40pm | 26/10/10

What you don’t get nosthow (amongst most things) is that Julia said she was setting up a regional processing centre without defining the region.  Now we have public servants conceding in senate estimates meetings, the fact that the region will include pretty much all of Asia and large parts of the Middle east, which means that it will allow about 60% of all the world’s refugees (approx 20 million) to be processed in East Timor. 

Apart from being another really dumb Julia Gillardism , she walked right into the rhetorical trap, which worries me if that she is that stupid, then we do really have a problem here.

Mattb says:

07:26pm | 26/10/10

Richard and the rest of you liberal voters seem to ignore one thing, most of the asylum seekers that have made their way to our shores in the past decade have come from two countries, Iraq and Afganistan. Gee, I wonder why they are fleeing these countries, could it be because of the two unjustified wars the liberal government under Howard followed the US into?, nah, surely not, any ‘intelligent observer’ can see that!...... Idiots

marley says:

08:22am | 27/10/10

Mattb - I believe that the largest number of asylum seekers in recent years has come from China, followed by Sri Lanka, India and Zimbabwe.  Afghanistan and Iraq are further down the list.  Admittedly, the Chinese and Indian asylum seekers are less likely to get accepted, but I believe the Chinese still constitute the highest number of successful claims.  Zimbabwe’s in the mix as well. 

And, as the UN will tell you, the numbers of Afghan refugees these days is much lower than it was during the days of Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

So it’s not quite as simple as a direct correlation between Howard’s wars and the number of refugees we get.

DaveO says:

12:18pm | 26/10/10

Spot on Super D, Gillard is doing a Kevin Rudd by being everything to everyone and standing for everything and nothing all at the same time. We need new leadership, the Rudd/Gillard experiement has failed beyond anyone’s imagination

Macca says:

12:41pm | 26/10/10

@Super D and DaveO, absolutely.

JWH had convictions, and whilst his positions on Asylum Seekers caused a lot of anger to some Australians, he stuck with him position and got results.

The ALP is neither here nor there when it comes to policy on Asylum seekers

John L says:

02:09pm | 26/10/10

Correct. The anger toward asylum seekers is actually the anger toward he high level of immigration the Government wants to foist on us (whatever the consequences) at the behest of big business

Bazza says:

12:12pm | 26/10/10

The “small handful of asylum seekers” who need more detention centres built They seem to take a lot of room and cost alot of money this small handful.

Max Vaunted says:

12:20pm | 26/10/10

Interesting that nosthow and leaping leroy each employed the identical term “handful of asylum seekers”. You boys wouldn’t be ALP staffers by any chance, would you? Just curious.

LeapingLeroy says:

05:04pm | 26/10/10

In 2009 skilled visa allotments were available to about 300,000 workers to come to Australia. That is almost 1/3rd the size of Adelaide each year to find accommodation, services and city infrastructure.

Conservatively there are also 50,000 people circulating each year who have overstayed a student or holiday visa.

These numbers make the 3-5000 asylum seekers sitting in detention look pretty small by comparison.

Gregg says:

03:31am | 27/10/10

@ Leroy,
You are leaping about with figures somewhat.
Have a read of http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm
You will see that the ratio split of numbers is about .66 for skilled and .33 for family and somewhere around 115,000 for skilled migration and that will include 457 TR visas.
More figures @ http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/24overview_skilled.htm
You will also have WHVs and many students and though both can be newbies each year, many are of a rollover nature.

Joan says:

12:50pm | 26/10/10

Hey Holly…. ring your local council and start a` house an asylum seeker program ` locally…. you can feel extra good by sharing your home- its real action that counts ... do it - you sound passionate about it… Saint Mary McKillop will be proud of you.

Gregg says:

01:37pm | 26/10/10

The Mayor may speak for some people Holly but who says he speaks for asylum seekers who are granted residency which means they can head to anywhere in Australia!
Every Asylum Seeker granted residency is just going to be another person on social security benefits.
Even people who have skills and have had to get them assessed, often have to get Australian registration for using them when they arrive and the whole process being one of several years and several thousand $$$ to get a visa are not eligible for social security benefits until they have been here for two years.
And for any claims that some of these asylum seekers may be doctors, well even they need a top standard of english and need to have their qualifications and ability examined, all taking a number of years.

It’s about time people started making themselves a little more aware of the practicalities of thatrod they are making for their own back.

Ben81 says:

02:11pm | 26/10/10

They’re bogans who don’t understand the real issue, just like those on the left who don’t understand or refuse to understand.  They’re embarassing and misguided but they don’t diminish genuine reality that the current situation is plain irresponsible and has to stop.  If I was there I would have stood up and supported the woman you mention and agreed that the refugees should be treated with compassion and welcomed.  I’m just as frustrated with those clueless twits as she would be, believe me.
I’d also say that the real issue of people smuggling and the resulting consequences for us and for refugees needs to be urgently addressed but mean spirited attitudes towards those who do come here that way don’t help anyone.  I dare say Tony Abbott would say the same, just like he has on more than a few occasions.

Randal says:

02:56pm | 26/10/10

Hey Holly, “Stop the boats” is a two party political mantra, not a Tony Abbott issue (please see my response for Gillards history on this above).

As for “ridiculous” claims of “stopping boats”, well they were stopped by the end of 2007, as people are unwilling to pay people smugglers if there is no guarantee of entry to their country of choice and that is exactly what occurred under Howards TPV’s and ‘Pacific Solution’ policy.

The solution is not an open borders policy as you suggest, it is a tough external processing policy that puts such barriers in place for those that take the boat option that it is simply not worth the risk or the cash. This does not mean that Australia does not take asylum seekers, by the contrary by deterring those that choose to use their financial means to arrive via people smuggling we are able to take those from legitimate camps, many of whom face waits of up to 10 years for placement.

Further, it ensures that those with the capacity to fund a boat journey via Singapore and Malaysia are also deterred from the risk of undertaking such a journey as God only knows the lives that have been lost in these attempts.

Humane and fair are the policies that this nation should employ in tackling this issue, and the current policies of the Gillard government, despite the rhetoric and spin, fall well short under any measure.

Dan says:

01:14pm | 26/10/10

Would you be asking these questions if it were 400 members of the Defence Force and their families moving back into the homes? Of course not. You would be suggesting ways that the children could be accommodated at nearby schools and how families could receive medical attention in other Hills centres or in Adelaide (not very far away). And local businesses would be licking their lips with anticipation at the considerable boost to the local economy.

Gregg says:

03:47am | 27/10/10

@jeffb.
Yep, plenty of refugees globally, mostly in some pretty tough conditions living in tents if they are lucky.
Australia has always been doing its part with a soundly run refugee policy, selection done in association with the UNHCR.
You have people with money saying stuff those poor sods, the word coming back from Australia is it’ll comparatively be easy street for us and so we’ll risk the kids lives too.
Educate yourself from UNHCR and our own Immigration data and you will quickly see that for every onshore humanitarian visa grant to someone using a people smuggler, the offshore visa grants to true refugees goes down.
Yep, stand up jeff and say no more to this government which is encouraging the use of people smugglers as it runs the structured refugee program into the ground and is also consuming so many additional resources.
Gillard and crew will have deaths of unknown numbers at sea including children on their hands.
If this spineless lot run to a system of moving families too quick to the mainland, guess what will likely happen next!
Yep, kids in schools perhaps without adequate medical checks.
Will you be happy if that happens and Aussie kids start contracting something not too nice?
So it’s not about being afraid of refugees jeff but seeing that a system that has been run very well for many years is not allowed to be over run by those with no respect for our borders and prepared to suck up on our generosity while people in far more desperate need are shoved aside.
Is that the Aussie way?

jeffb says:

10:11am | 27/10/10

“over run by those with no respect for our borders”
Ridiculous, nothing more than thinly veiled xenophobia. Refugees choose to come here because they have a deep respect for Australia. Its also completely legal to enter Australia in any fashion to seek asylum.

“Yep, kids in schools perhaps without adequate medical checks.”
Again, absolutely ridiculous. Refugees have always been quarantined and received medical checks before being allowed into detention, or previously into the community.

“the word coming back from Australia is it’ll comparatively be easy street for us and so we’ll risk the kids lives too”
Why the hell would a genuine refugee leave his family in a situation they are desperate to escape? Do you think the government of the country they are fleeing will cooperate in reuniting the family once refugee status has been established in Australia? ...

“encouraging the use of people smugglers” ...

Seriously do you expect fair comment on this rubbish? You’re doing nothing more than throwing the same old Conservative talk points about. You are really willing to just throw people under a bus for some political points?

Both major parties are playing popular politics with this issue, while Labor’s approach is starting to head in the right direction they’re still miles off, the opposition on the other hand doesn’t have a policy at all other than “tougher than Howard”.

Please do some reading independent of News Corp & both major political parties.

Gregg says:

02:00pm | 27/10/10

@jeffb,
You obviously have not noticed earlier posts of mine re UNHCR and our own Immigration department for you would see I fully support our structured refugee program so no xenophobia here.
Is it the Australian way to allow bullies with money to push their way in ahead of those with more desperate needs?

” Again, absolutely ridiculous. Refugees have always been quarantined and received medical checks before being allowed into detention, or previously into the community. “
In a well managed program such as we have had, yes that happens but with the Green Labor knee jerking going on, whether it always remains to be so is another matter.
Alway the way usually on people without adequate discussion skills to selectively quote for preceding what you refer to is
” If this spineless lot run to a system of moving families too quick to the mainland, guess what will likely happen next! “

” Why the hell would a genuine refugee leave his family in a situation they are desperate to escape? Do you think the government of the country they are fleeing will cooperate in reuniting the family once refugee status has been established in Australia? ... “
Have you actually noticed the predominance of men of all ages coming on the boats and do you think there is any chance that they have left families behind?
There is actual provision in the Immigration regulations for special visas to allow families to be re-united and yes it is happening.

I’d suggest jeff, that it is you that are a bit blinded and need to read up on some facts on what is happening re numbers.

The numbers quite clearly show a drop in numbers associated with people smugglers when there were TPVs and as soon as they were revoked by Krudd, the people smuggling has soared and who knows where it will stop!

Gregg says:

03:54am | 27/10/10

Anna, most are likely not to have any skills let alone command of english and any with skills probab;y may not have qualifications acceptable to Australian standards.
People who apply for skilled visas to immigrate to Australia pay many thousands of dollars and have to have their skills assessed to even make a visa application feasible, the whole process often taking a number of years.
It is going to be many many years before any will be making any sort of a contribution and we’re just developing more welfare class people with kids likely to get into crime.
You would have to be kidding about detailed records being maintained for that would be considered discriminatory.

jeffb says:

10:15am | 27/10/10

Do you have anything at all to backup your claims that refugees are “dole bludgers” and their children criminals?

You’ve never had any contact with refugees at all have you?

One thing you’re correct about is the majority have poor english skills, perhaps you could do something constructive for once Gregg and donate to http://rran.org/dictionary/

Gregg says:

02:11pm | 27/10/10

@jeffb,
Dole bludgers may be your terminology but if large groups of people are arriving in the community and are relatively unemployable, not that there is good employment for all here as it is, they will remain on welfare benefits for if the government does not support them their situation will be even more dire.

If you do think that crime goes along with poverty in a more affluent community, I would suspect that you have had little to do with petty or more serious crime and how it can travel in partnership with poverty.

I do a substantial ammount of work in a voluntary advisory capacity with people looking to come to Australia with various visas.
First dictionary I ever supplied directly to a person in a developing country was about 17 years ago.
Also managed to partake off the cuff in a few english lessons and offer some free tutorial work.

Gregg says:

02:34pm | 27/10/10

Aaron, it’s not about terrorists attempting to get in via people smuggling though if they were successful, we’ll likely not know about it until much later.

The refugee problem is far from a media generated issue but certainly political desisions have helped the attempts to turn what has been a well managed and humane system on its head.
Start with http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/ and http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm in particular will show you that while onshore humanitarian numbers [ mainly those via people snugglers ] goes up the offshore numbers [ mainly those sponsored from refugee centres ] go down , there being a total allowance of about 7000 p.a. though those with money using people smugglers will take little notice of that.

Ask yourself who are in the more dire straits, those in global tent cities struggling to survive or all those relatively healthy looking specimens being put into detention.

The reason that detention is doing nothing Aaron is that the word goes back [ and yes they have free internet in detention ] that even a few years in detention is better than not getting to Australia.
The revoking of TPVs is just the Ace in the pack.

If we are going to grow up Aaron, what of all the refugees in the centres!
Just 15M of them globally.
About 50,000 applications annually for 6000 Australian places, the remainder being eligible for sponsorship.
That’s the queue being pushed to the front of by policy that encourages people smuggling.
Do you feel good about that?
And what of those that does at sea because of the encouraging policy?

James1 says:

09:15am | 27/10/10

I couldn’t care less about dole bludgers and other so-called “needy of Australia”, who actually get exactly the same as asylum seekers (note the spelling).

I would prefer a family fleeing from a conflict zone get my tax money than some freeloader who pops out kids at $5000 a go…

Claire says:

11:05am | 27/10/10

You are attempting to dehumanise these people by calling them ‘grubs’. They are not grubs, they are human beings.

James1 says:

09:16am | 27/10/10

Um, because it would be called murder, perhaps?

jeffb says:

10:19am | 27/10/10

Its all the same, behind bars/in detention, whats the difference? As a Afghani child detainee said “Even if a cage is made of gold, it’s still a cage.”

marley says:

12:37pm | 27/10/10

Well, which is more worrying - a few hundred Afghans a year, or tens of thousands of Indians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Chinese, etc etc, all with very different cultural and belief systems, who come under the regular migration program?  The reality is, most immigrants arriving here have very different social, religious and political backgrounds from our own.  That’s not an issue as long as they are able to adapt and integrate.  And I don’t see any reason to believe an Afghan is less likely to do so than a Korean or a Pacific Islander.

Gregg says:

02:50pm | 27/10/10

@Laughing on the old gum tree,
Some Australians may have cultural issues and though a visit to an Afghani restaurant many years back didn’t exactly make me a total fan of the menu, it was like a lot of different tastes that people from other countries bring to Australia not too bad.
The Ghan [ The Train up through the centre ] is named so because of the role that Afghanis played in driving camel hauled wagons inland before mechanised transport by road/rail/air.
http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/ghan.htm

I would think also that just like Indian curries we can also in the future look forward to some Sri Lankan cuisine just as many enjoy Chinese, Vietnames, Thai, Malay, Italian, Greek and even the odd Hungarian Goulash.

The issue for may is not so much one of culture I would feel and for myself it is maintaining control of an existing refugee/humanitarian program, a program being undermined by our current government’s policy.
Not only are people using people smugglers displacing selection of people struggling to survive in refugee centres tents if lucky enough to have one, but the resources needed to handle the people smuggler influx is already affecting other government immigration programs, skilled and family visas which already take often years to get are now having longer processing times.

Gregg says:

03:19pm | 27/10/10

@ Dieter,
One thing you will get in Australia Dieter is a wide range of views, not surprising seeing as many Australians have connections to various histories of many nations, people with ancestory or immediate connections to something like over 200 nationalities I think the latest count is.
People here for fifty years may well be told anything by anybody dependant on attitudes and you should not always take an offensive attitude as being representative of the nation.
You talk of racism and then say
” I think it’s time the Aboriginal Australians started the same negative rhetoric that white xenophobes are using now. “Any one not Aboriginal - “go back to where you come from!”
So just what is your own attitude!

One trait that Australians in general are renowned for is supporting a ” fair go “
Have a look at the reugee/humanitarian policy the country has had for many years - http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm
No racism there sport and what is happening with those using people smugglers is that those with access to money are prepared to displace desperate refugees from opportunity - 15M of them globally.
As far as I am concerned that is not a Fair Go, no racism in it as the UNHCR refugee centres are global.

It was different back in the fatherland during WW2 under the third riech with no Fair Go there and just as well those Nazis got demolished for we do not need any of that lot here.

Gavin says:

03:28pm | 27/10/10

if they have been here for 50 years have not had the decency to learn any english, then I am all for “going back to where you came from!”

Gregg says:

03:25pm | 27/10/10

Tommy, it is the government that needs to get a grip though the current and previous PMs obviously have found that difficult and meanwhile the boat people as you refer to them whilst quite likely not so terrible; they are displacing refugees from UNHCR and NGO centres globally just because they have access to money to use criminals.
Have a look at http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm .
That is not the Aussie Fair Go approach

Gregg says:

02:17pm | 27/10/10

Just one authors own interpretation and inflection of views Claire.
The facts on figures are available from UNHCR and Immigration records.