It’s tough to argue for border security these days because you get accursed of being an uncaring drunkard if you do, However I suspect that the ranting from my latte sipping friends is because now that they have a regime in the lodge that has done as they have for so long demanded that they are dumbstruck by their own failure to understand the inevitable result to their policy of choice.
A boat is intercepted by border patrol boats off Australia's northern coas
TWO boats carrying almost 80 suspected asylum seekers have been intercepted by Border Protection Command, bringing to 17 the number of vessels detected since August.
The interceptions occurred less than 24 hours after the mysterious discovery by Customs of four suspected asylum seekers on Deliverance Island, 30 nautical miles off the coast of Papua New Guinea.
As more of the injured from the fatal boat explosion of two weeks ago left hospital – for immigration detention – Afghanistan’s ambassador to Australia backed the Rudd Government’s argument that global instability was behind the surge in arrivals.
But what can we expect from our government and their cheer squad?
Certainly not a reteurn o a border protection regime that actually worked it seems…
Cheers Comrades
Looks like you’re stuck with the current policy for a while yet, Iain. Just like we were stuck with John Howard’s terrible policy for all those years. Learn to live with it might be the appropriate response, as I think both sides have put their positions forward and nothing you or I say is going to change the current situation.
I’m not exactly ‘revelling’ in what’s going on but I believe the Rudd Govt has a handle on it and is handling it the right way for now.
“a border protection regime that actually worked “
Hi Iain, what about your suggestion some time ago and just use a .303 rifle. Then you could use Howard’s tactic and claim they shot themselves in the head.
It would stop them from trying to get to a safe country if they new they faced an Iain Hall bullet.
Don’t you agree?
Boy these problems are so easy to solve when you use the ideas of the wacky right.
Why do our Left Wing brothers always only deal in extremes ? A bullet ? Talking about the dark side of the force.
That is not what is being advocated.
Send a couple of the boats back to Indonesia, and instead of them always ducking for cover, and pushing the problem on to us, maybe they may be able to learn to handle it themselves.
Yeah I know what you mean David, Craigy takes a sarcastic comment that I made about a speed camera indecent and applies it to a situation where AI have never advocated the use of deadly force, sort of par for the course though… sigh
You miss my point David. Iain I expect to duck and weave – it is his way.
Under Howard’s ‘boarder protection’ which Iain clams to support, we did great harm to many men, women and children. Most of which were found to be true refugees.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/children_detention_report/summaryguide/index.html
“The results are clear. Immigration detention centres expose children to
enormous mental distress – which confirms the need to ensure that
children should only be locked up in this environment as a measure of
last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.
More than 92% of all children arriving by boat since 1999 have been
recognised by Australian authorities to be refugees. In the case of Iraqi
children the figures are as high as 98%.
And yet we have welcomed these children by taking them to remote
facilities and detaining them there to wait for an outcome on their visa
application.
Children regularly wait for months or years in detention. In fact, as at
the end of 2003, the majority of children in detention had been held for
more than two years. This policy seems a complete departure from the
principle of detention as a measure of last resort.”
Iain claims this to be a good thing – hurting people is okay in Howard and Iain’s book if you get the political out come you are after – the election of a conservative Government.
So why don’t we just shoot the next few boat loads of ‘illegal’s’ and then the boats will stop.
Why not Iain and David, it isn’t that much more extreme than the system you support?
Okay, .303 is extreme, what about we just waterboard them in public would that be okay Iain?
Okay that’s also a bit extreme.
I know – why don’t we just take them to some third country and lock them in indefinite detention, give them no future while we pretend that they might be terrorists, now that would work!
What do you expect us to do Craigy ? Open our doors gleefully, when every boat load arrives at our coast line ? We wouldn’t have two or three boats to worry about then, be more like hundreds.
What to we do, put them up in the Travelodge Darwin ? The conditions may seem harsh to you and I, but if these people are legit refugees, then, they would seem to be a motel in comparison. They are supposed to be refugees, fleeing for their very lives, not bloody tourists at Disneyland.
They are housed, fed, clothed, and sure they are in a secure compound, but until their status is clarified, that is exactly the place they should be. I guarantee that their health care, education as well as personal needs are better catered for there, than was the case in their own country that they just supposedly fled in terror of their lives ? If they are legitimate refugees ? Free medical, dental, schools and so on. They are told the procedures when they are placed in the Centres, of how to apply for residency.
What else do you want us to do, just open the gates ? Should never happen, and hopefully never will.
They are not immigrants, which is what it appears you are getting confused with I think. We have to be honest about it, they are illegal immigrants, perpetrating an illegal act. They have to be isolated, not only for health issues, but also issues such as language barriers, unscrupulous employers, (as well as others), waiting to take advantage of them. One only has to look at the Texas/Mexican border to validate that ?
When we come down to it, their country of origin is not that dire that it needs for it’s population to evacuate en mass. Sure, that’s my opinion, but shared by many.
Seventeen boats, David, 17 in 9 months. That’s not hundreds. I agree that when (and if) it escalates we have to look at ‘stemmimg the flow’. But it ain’t there yet. It’s growing, I admit, but it’s not panic stations. Right now I reckon you, Iain, Malcy et al are over-reacting and politicising it. Let’s just wait & see. You’re getting ahead of yourself – it’s not a real problem, not yet.
No doubt this is a thorny issue. An effective policy solution which protects human rights and deters people smugglers may never be found. One thing is sure, contrary to Ian’s assertions the Howard Government’s policy was certainly not a “border protection system that actually worked”. That system denied refugees of their liberty and caused untold physical and psychological damage to vulnerable men, women and children.
We must consider methods of preventing people smuggling that do not involve punishing the people smuggler’s victims.
Craigy
Where precisely have I ever made such a claim? Please argue against what I say rather than this sort of strawman of your own invention.
Using deadly force is actually substantially more extreme than repatriating would be economic migrants who arrive here illeagally in my book , but then yoyu subscribe to the ideolo9gy that gave us Stalin’s purges don’t you Craigy?
Why is it You need to suggest that anyone has to be cruel to maintain a border security regime that makes us the ones who decide which people can come here to live?
In the dozen or so posts that I have written since Brother Number One changed the mandatory detention regime I am pretty sure that I have never suggested that leaky boats would be a way that terrorist would try to entry the country. but please feel free to check.
I am sorry Ray, but with no prospect of success, 17 boats as you say would seem insignificant, if word went down the pike that Australia’s doors were open ? The trickle would turn to a flood, and don’t believe it wouldn’t happen either. It did in the seventies if you remember ?
I don’t think I am over dramatising it one little bit. Again, if they are legitimate refugees, I don’t care how many boats come, but these are not legitimate refugees, and as such (at least until their status is finalised), should not be shown or granted those privaleges.
Yes it happened in the 70s – under Malcolm Fraser. And, thankfully, that Malcolm handled it humanely.
Trust, David, trust. I trust the Rudd Govt to take the appropriate action when and if the current situation becomes a real problem.
That;s why we elect Governments, to make the right decisons and so far he has. Contrary to what you imply, Rudd is not going to ‘open the floodgates’ and will clamp down on it somehow when (and IF) it becomes epidemic.
He knows what he’s doing, David, and he’ll do it the right way, I’m sure.
And I don’t think he’ll be asking you (or me). I certainly trust him ahead of Mr ‘lock em all up’ Howard.
Welcome to my blog Ed
I agree with you that this is a problem that requires something of a balancing act between protecting individuals who may be vulnerable and ensuring that it is we who controls our borders, not the people smugglers.
If you have a workable solution then please share it with the rest of us because so far I ahev seen nothing from trhe left that sounds even remotely effective.
Ray the man you want us to trust came into office declaring that he was “a fiscal conservative” and he has beem making Gough look like Ebenezer Scrooge .
Well, the IMF, the RBA and most major economic experts reckon he’s doing the right thing with the economy, Iain.
We’re getting onto a different issue though. The GFC is another matter entirely. Even if he’s ‘wrong’ in injecting so much cash to prop up the economy that doesn’t preclude him from being right in the refugee matter.
Seems to be OK so far. 17 boats mate, 17 does not a flood make. Come back to me when it’s say 17 every few weeks.
That’s what I am saying Ray. 17 is not so bad, but I fear that figure will multiply substantially, if our stance is slackened off for a moment.
As for “trust”, a politician ? Man, there are two words that should never appear in a sentence together. Trust ? It is a case of the “lesser of two evils”.
So it’s guilty till proven innocent is it David?
How can you say this, when we know that your claim that they are ‘not legitimate refugees’ is, in the vast majority of cases, bullshit.
“More than 92% of all children arriving by boat since 1999 have been
recognised by Australian authorities to be refugees. In the case of Iraqi
children the figures are as high as 98%.
Iain, “Where precisely have I ever made such a claim?”
Everything I have said you support was part of Howard’s policy – which you said you support.
So your point is?
To both of you – you can continue to throw the allegation around that teh Left wants open boarders. I am yet to hear anyone ask for that. What most people have come to accept is that Howard’s policies were inhumane and you shouldn’t stop people taking risks by putting them at risk, as detention has been shown to do.
David, your moral equivalence argument – that they are better off in our jail (without conviction) than in their own country may be true, but it still doesn’t make our treatment of these poor people the right way to do it.
I don’t agree with all that the current Government is doing in this area but it is better than Howard’s dog whistle, demonisation of innocent refugees…..which Iain has continually supported.
Thanks Ian,
I don’t think it helps to turn this into a left v right thang. No matter what our political leanings, we seek to minimise human suffering, whether it be at the hands of people smugglers, despotic regimes or Australian officials.
I’m afraid I have no complete solution to offer, this is an international problem and can only be tackled through cooperation between nations. For this reason it is very important that Australia take seriously international conventions on the treatment of refugees.
I would note that there are two great myths at work in this debate. The first that a functioning “queue” exists for refugees to enter Australia. Radio National ran a story this week on confirmed refugees having to wait more than 9 years in an Indonesian processing camp.
The second myth (roughly quoting Julian Burnside from the top of my head) is that is is advisable or commendable to wait in argue when you life or the lives of your loved one are in danger. If my family were in danger, recon I would be on the first boat out.
PS – David, I think you should read Julian Burnside’s accounts of the conditions inside imigration detention centres under the previous government.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/book-reviews/watching-brief/2008/01/07/1199554551964.html
Ed
the reason that so many people spent a long time in detention under the previous government is quite simply that there were to many drawn out appeal processes once a claim had been rejected, the reality is that most of the detainees could at any time agreed to be volitionally repatriated and therefore released from detention.
I support a swift determination of the status of all who claim to be refugees followed by equally swift removals if those claims are found to be spurious. But I am more than suspicious when you get groups of men coming here ahead of their families who claim to be fleeing for their lives.
Craigy
“Boarders” are those who stay in a Boarding house
the word you mean”border” as in boundary
Ian, The 9 year story is actually current rather than a Howard Gov thing. However I don’t think that your speculation re the long stints in detention is accurate because such a high percentage(off the top of my head 90+ %) of boat people were found to be genuine refugees.
I don’t think that making detention conditions virtually unbearable then offering voluntary repatriation to people who claim they are fleeing for their lives is very helpful… It is about as logical as drowning people to see if they are witches.
There is no reason for border protection policy to be punitive. It must be re remembered that genuine refugees are victims not criminals.
The conditions are a whole lot better, than those some of our parents endured in the 50′s and 60′s ? Remember those half moon huts ? I have seen vision of the internals of these new centres, and dam, they are better than what I had in the RAAF ? At least until they are set fire to !
“The first that a functioning “queue” exists for refugees to enter Australia.”
That is incorrect. The queue is used to describe, the amount of people “waiting” for spaces, to allow them to ‘legally emigrate’ to this country. That is why they are called queue jumpers, as when they are allowed to stay, given residency visas, they jump to the top of that queue, above those who had not just landed on the doorstep
As Iain said, these are not refugees. If things were that bad, in Sri Lanka, that they had to vamoos, then why leave the wives and kids behind ? You wouldn’t !
It’s all a sham, and all you left winger sympathisers are being sucked in.
David, are you as knowledgeable on Sri Lanka as you are on Indonesia? While you display such ignorance your opinions aren’t worth wiping my bum on.
You have no idea what I know about Toaf.
After a career in the military, the picture that the ‘public’ saw/sees about Indonesia, is a far cry from what is reality. You only know what the powers that be, want to ‘spoon feed’ you, so I am not the ignorant one sunshine.
Open your eyes, or better still, take off those rosy red shades your wearing, and take a look at the situation for what it is. Might be better to pull your pants up, and go and buy yourself a paper. Don’t even have to do that, do a google.
Regardless of what side of the fence you sit on, we must all have to agree, that it is time for the gang, in Canberra, make up their minds, and legislate one way or the other.
Let them in, or don’t let them in, just make the decision.
Perhaps the fact that Parliament is in recess, has aided them to stall, and hopefully wait until the situation disappears from the front pages of our newspapers ?
David, what does the DIO say about Indonesia? Or the ONA?
All this “I was in the military” means nothing. What happened, did they teach you that Indonesia has 600 million people? Or that our relationship with Indonesia is “tenuous”? Or that it has experienced “many” coups and revolutions? If so, then your training officer was clearly bullshitting you. Either that or his name was Sergeant; Hall.
Finally, David, I want to respond to your suggestion that I “only know what the powers that be, want to ’spoon feed’” me about Indonesia. I lived in Indonesia for a year. I have spent time studying the country’s history, politics, and people. I am no expert, but I know enough to recognise paranoid bullshit when I see it.
Oh gimme a break Toaf. If you lived in Indonesia for a year, then you should know better, unless you lived in that fantasy land of Bali ?
You have a hatred for the military as well Toaf ?
I can present a few fancy acronyms as well, but don’t like the idea of spending a few years in the clink. Perhaps, I could be sent to one of the detention centres ? Sure beats the alternative.
I am no expert either, but what I saw over my career, instilled in me a great deal of mistrust in whatever they said.
Again, you change the line, we are not talking about Indonesians here, we are talking about Sri Lankans. Single men, all ready to hit the dole queue, and in a couple of years, bring out wives, kids, grandparents, cousins et al.
Paranoid bullshit huh ? Hmm, at least I am living in the real world.
David, I lived in Sumatera. I visited other spots, too, none of which were Bali. I offered those “fancy acronyms” cos I thought a “military” man would recognise them. And no, I don’t have a hatred for the armed forces. You’re digging a nice little hole of ignorance there, David. Keep digging.
Ignorance ? You’re a ‘dream weaver’ Toaf. Come back to the rest of us, in reality ?
You want to continue to drag the argument back to Indonesia, then fine.
Again, they would over run us in bloody heartbeat, if they had a boat that could get this far. If you don’t know that, then I am not the one who is ignorant.
Where are the criticisms, of your ‘beloved land’, when they fuel up the “refugee boats”, and point them towards us ? Your quick to criticise me, politicians (or in fact anyone else), that suggests we do the same ?
Talk about hypocricy !?
David,
“The queue is used to describe, the amount of people “waiting” for spaces, to allow them to ‘legally emigrate’ to this country.”
The system you are talking about is a facilitation process to ensure that Australia is meeting its humanitarian commitments. Outside of that anyone has a right to come to Australia and claim refugee status.
Legally emigrating is not the same as claiming refugee status (which is also legal).
As for single men waiting to join the dole queue, I doubt you can provide any evidence of this. I am tempted to believe that anyone proactive enough to leave their homeland and seek a better life (even assuming your baseless claim that they are economic refugees) is unlikely to be satisfied sitting around on the dole.
Finally (puff puff), have a read of that book I recommended and tell me if you still think you have suffered worse conditions.
My point Ed, is that if our humanitarian requirement is for say 1000 refugees, and 5000 arrive, what happens then ? Who is going to pay for that ? How ?
I am not arguing with your reasoning here Ed. If I was in a similar situation, then I would want to find somewhere else to live, and prosper as well. That is not the argument. There are qualified mechanics, engineers, doctors etc, that have waited for years to enter this country legally, but they can’t can they ? They are shown the “Full” sign.
As was discussed in a previous thread, the term “refugee” is bandied about too readily, to describe people that don’t appear to be.
it is time for the gang, in Canberra, make up their minds, and legislate one way or the other.
As much as I don’t want to drag David’s anger and insults away from Toaf and onto me (I’ve been there!) I have to wonder WTF you mean by the above, David?
I think the Govt has already made up its mind how to handle the current ‘massive influx of ‘illegals’, as you would put it, totalling the ‘massive’ amount of 17 boats and about 600 people over the past 9 months.
And it seems to be working. What’s the problem?
Go take a cold shower, you’re getting a bit lathered around your red neck.
The policy may seem clear to you Ray, but obiously, it isn’t elsewhere in the world, hence the latest arrivals.
By the way, I am not the one getting “lathered” as you put it. You lefties only ever listen to one side of the argument, and if it doesn’t agree with yours, then you start with the insults. As for me, I said I don’t care one way or the other. Refugees or not, just make the decision, and get on with it.
BTW
“And it seems to be working. What’s the problem?”
Start letting them stay, and you’ll see what the problem will be, as I have said.
We have been “letting them stay”, David. Even John Howard eventually let some of them stay. So where are the problems? I haven’t seen them yet.
Oh, silly me, I forgot. It’s all that violence and stuff they apparently cause that you went on about last time we clashed on this issue.
One of the major problems is pure economics. We are in recession, and look like no end to it anytime soon. How are we going to employ them ? Feed, clothe, and provide health care etc. That’s not an excuse, that is just the way it is. Look at the growing unemployment queues as well as dwindling government revenues, and we can’t afford to be as generous as we could or should be.
I am not going to get into a racial debate with you Ray. It has nothing to do with race this time. It is straight economics, and international law. My question regarding what Indonesia is doing or not doing is even more valid, yet there has been no criticism of them ? Why should we solve their problem for them ? Agreed, it is an international problem, but Australia does it’s fair share. Sure, there have been loose cannons mouthing off in the press lately, that we are down on our quota, but those figures are misleading at best.
It is a problem today, but will end up a bigger problem tomorrow. The “Pacific Solution” hasn’t worked, they continue to come. Why should it be Australia’s problem to cure the woes of the region ?
As said, validate quickly their status, and have the guts to turn away those that aren’t genuine refugees. If they cannot verify their status, tough love for them. What’s the bet, given the choice of verifying their true status, or a qantas flight home, the information will quickly be forthcoming, if they are genuine ?
I am not going down the ethnic gang route again with you Ray, you just go right off your nut and call me a racist. Problems exist, and in worsening economic times, these problems are only going to get worse. What is wrong with passing the buck for a while ? After all, Every country in between there and here, have been doing it for years ?
Why should it be Australia’s problem to cure the woes of the region ?
Like it or not, we’re part of the region and we, as possibly the most advanced and certainly the most egalitarian country in the region, have an obligation to take them. It’s as simple as that.
I agree there has to be a limit on this and we can’t have a boat arriving every few hours and just say, “Hi guys, welcome, here’s your handout cheque”, but it’s not reached anything like the stage where we need to alter existing policy, in my opinion.
And “sending them back” is never going to be acceptable, I’m afraid. Eventually it might require us going to Indonesia and finding the genuine refugees, before they get sucked in by the smugglers.
Too bad about the economy though, David, that’s just part of the price we pay to be the best country in the world.
(There you go, I didn’t go “nuts”, as you put it. Although I can’t recall ever doing that here)
I agree Ray, I think you’re correct. No argument from me. The Federal Police are already at work in Indonesia, to attempt to identify the “people” (and I use the term irreverently) responsible. Until then, as you say, it will all be academic, until a permanent solution is found. Peace ? Never happen, but a nice thought for a second or two ?