Australia's Mandatory Detention

[Frayed]

I thought I should start a new thread to avoid sidetracking the thread "What the rest of the world thinks of Australia."
The following is my response to this post:
Sure, ill bite on mandatory detention.

If I go to the US on a boat right now, land somewhere on the pacific coast and start wandering around, whats going to happen to me when im picked up by the local copper?

They are going to do an ID check on me, and if the copper isnt useless thats going to be escalated to an immigration check. When thats completed, ill be detained and deported.

Now, mandatory immigration in Australia becomes an issue because the peeps that come here by boat dont want to go home and thus fight the deportation part of the process. If I was picked up in the US, told I was going to be deported and said "well, I dont want to be deported, so ill take you to court" do you think id get to walk free while I wait for the court result?

Same goes for any western country on the planet. Illegal immigrants get detained. Live with it.

People keep thinking Australia is some kind of racist haven. It simply isnt. Anyone who comes here and truely becomes an Aussie is welcomed with open arms. Its the 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation "australian" asians and south euros who still think of themselves as vietnamese or indian or italian that piss me off. IMO those people should fuck the hell off to what they still call "home".
Sure, ill bite on mandatory detention.


I'll bite back :p

Australia is obligated under International Law to offer asylum to those fleeing persecution. Beyond International Law I believe we also have a moral obligation to protect people who, for their relgious, political etc beliefs will be detained, tortured, murdered and so forth.
Many of the Asylum seekers (note: not illegal immigrants) are fleeing from places considered so dangerous Australia doesn't have diplomatic posts. There is no 'queue jumping' if there is simply no queue to join.

In Australia, mandatory detention occurs for 'Asylum seekers'. These are individuals who have yet to have their application for Asylum processed. They are not illegal immigrants, as at this stage their application has not been rejected. They are assumed to be guilty from the moment they arrive, even though International Law dictates that seeking asylum is not a crime.

Amongst the 'asylum seekers' who get detained, we have women and children. The fact we are willing to detain children appalls me. Can we honestly say that children represent any kind of threat to the nation? In addition, the children themselves have committed no crime. If any crime has been committed, and I don't sincerely believe one has been (see above regarding International Law) it is the parents who have commited the crime, not the child. Locking up children in detention for 2-3 years for the 'crime' of their parents is simply inhumane.

Looking at the case of Peter Qasim, we see just how ridiculous the whole asylum seeking policy is. This is a man from Kashmir who was denied asylum, but was unable to be deported because Kashmiri authorities refused to recognise him as a citizen. He was never charged with anything and so has never had the right to defend himself. Instead he has stayed in detention for six-and-a-half years, whilst the government 'looks into his case'. No charged crime, simply punishment.

So much more to be said regarding the Howard government's propaganda machine, "they're throwing their babies over board" and incorrectly labeling asylum seekers as 'potential terrorists' but I'll leave it for now.

[keitaidensha]

this isn't a PM because... :confused:

[Frayed]

This isn't a pm because it is not a personal response.
I do not have an issue Jai personally. I'm hoping to stimulate debate with Jai and other Australian members or people who wish to speak of their own countries policies. I thought posting in the original thread would detract from its purpose (i.e for people to give their opinion of Australia).
I quoted Jai in his entirety in order to respect his right to have a say. As other members wish to add their thoughts, Jai won't need to refer them back to his original post so they can see his position.
Ultimately, although the mandatory detention post was made in another thread I thought it warranted its own thread so both issues (views on Australia and Mandatory Detention) don't become intertwined.

[Shadowblade]

Amongst the 'asylum seekers' who get detained, we have women and children. The fact we are willing to detain children appalls me. Can we honestly say that children represent any kind of threat to the nation? In addition, the children themselves have committed no crime. If any crime has been committed, and I don't sincerely believe one has been (see above regarding International Law) it is the parents who have commited the crime, not the child. Locking up children in detention for 2-3 years for the 'crime' of their parents is simply inhumane.


There is also that case from a few months ago where a couple of children were taken from their school and put into detention.

[PopCulturePooka]

The Howard Government stance on immigration and their use of detention centres is disgusting.

The places are foul. Sexual assaults, violence, suidcides and the like have taken place in these places.

To have women and children there, sometimes for up to 4 years, is a plague on Australian society. It is one of the primary examples of why the Hoawrd government is not fit to lead a nation and is a western world government less compassionate, less humane and less lawful that the Bush administration.


It is stuff like this, and the fact so many support it, that makes ashamed of my nation.

[erbiumfiber]

I'm having a hard time imagining a government worse than the Bush administration. At least Australia isn't going around making up wars and killing thousands of people.

In Japan, asylum seekers are detained forever in Chiba. We had one at our church whose petition was rejected but had been in Chiba for 4 years. He was let out because Canada was willing to take him if it found a sponser. He was a Kurd from Turkey (I didn't know they were being persecuted).

The US detention center in NJ has pretty appalling conditions from what I understand.

But, hey, the US has more illegal immigrants than legal immigrants per year. Most people don't bother with asylum, it's much easier to just be an illegal immigrant.

[Jai]

The problem with your argument is the use of the term "asylum seeker" to describe illegal immigrants.

These are individuals who have yet to have their application for Asylum processed.

Close, but no cigar. these are individuals who are yet to have their application (or in the more drawn out cases, their (n)th appeal heard at court) processed to have their status changed from illegal immigrant to asylum seeker. The most massive majority of all detainees are not victims of persecution escaping certain death at the hands of evil dictators - they are simply in search of a better standard of living. While that is hardly a callous crime to commit, it is against most nations laws to say "well, I dont like my country. Ill live here instead. Even better, ill just sneak in and not tell anyone!".

Popculturepooka, people like you make me absolutely and utterly sick to my stomach. Dont like Australia? Why dont you move your ass to Zimbabwe and see how much "better" it gets.

[PopCulturePooka]

The problem with your argument is the use of the term "asylum seeker" to describe illegal immigrants.

Close, but no cigar. these are individuals who are yet to have their application (or in the more drawn out cases, their (n)th appeal heard at court) processed to have their status changed from illegal immigrant to asylum seeker. The most massive majority of all detainees are not victims of persecution escaping certain death at the hands of evil dictators - they are simply in search of a better standard of living. While that is hardly a callous crime to commit, it is against most nations laws to say "well, I dont like my country. Ill live here instead. Even better, ill just sneak in and not tell anyone!".
How do you justify letting Poms, Western Europeons and Kiwis stay in this country illegaly for a good many years beyond their visa limits without getting thrown in the desert? While at Uni, my friends room-mate was french guy who had been here for 6 years longer than his tourist visa allowed. He lived of the radar. He took cash in hand jobs. He used someone else medicare card to squelch on our Medical system. What are the odds do you think, when he gets caught, of being thrown in the Desert?
Or my kiwi friend from high school whose family have lived here 24 years while still retaining kiwi citzenship. Never became Aussies, never want too.

How do you Jusitfy the conditions of places like Woomera? Where reports that 13 year old girls have been sexually abused. Where some reports even accuse the GUARDS of the abuse? Where suicides and suicide attempts have taken place? Where kids and women are kept, in the middle of a desert, with no air conditioning or proper health care (particualrly mental health care). Fine they are illegals, but you can justify a camp that contains rape, suicide, violence and piss poor health care on Australian soil? Why is the Howard government so scared to let the UN or Red Cross inspect these places?

The kids are out now, and so are the women, but that does not excuse what went on in their, especially seeing as though the Howard Government only removed the women and kids after huge public outcry and some embarassing egg on their face.

Popculturepooka, people like you make me absolutely and utterly sick to my stomach. Dont like Australia? Why dont you move your ass to Zimbabwe and see how much "better" it gets.Comprehension skills = Always good.

I said our Governemnt, and its actions regarding immigration, Education, Telstra, Care for the Bush, Health and Workers Rights, make me ashamed of my country. Didn't say I don't like Australia. In fact I quite like our country. I love our way of life, our supposed open minded accepting nature and oppurtunity for all way of life. I detest that John Howard and his merry band of useless cunts are working so hard to rape our country for their own ends. That they have caused so many divisions in Australian society, helped (by stealing Hanson like politics) breed feelings of mistrust, resentment, fear and racism for other people. That they have done their own thing (Iraq, Selling Telstra, IR reform) that the huge majority of Australians have been against.

I stay in Australia on the hope that one day we will have a better, more humane government (or that Howard and his people die vicious painful deaths). I stay beause its here that I can help that to happen.

[DarkFire168]

Amongst the 'asylum seekers' who get detained, we have women and children. The fact we are willing to detain children appalls me. Can we honestly say that children represent any kind of threat to the nation? In addition, the children themselves have committed no crime. If any crime has been committed, and I don't sincerely believe one has been (see above regarding International Law) it is the parents who have commited the crime, not the child. Locking up children in detention for 2-3 years for the 'crime' of their parents is simply inhumane.

I'd like to point out that there ARE crazed kids in the world who do stupid things for evil people. *Points at South Africa* The Muwambe Kids (Or whatever the hell they're called) are a bunch of AK-47 weilding, 11-15 year old boys who serve the government by shooting people. *Points at the Middle East* Men, women AND children work for terrorist networks such as Al Quaeda. There was a bombing a couple months ago at a US checkpoint where a kid was wearing an explosive vest and because the guards didn't suspect children to be terrorists, they all payed with their lives when the kid detonated himself. There was a bombing in Pakistan a year or so ago where a 13 year old boy walked into a mosque and detonated his explosives covered vest, killing like 70 odd innocent people. Mindless violence knows no starting age. You can be 14 or 41 and kill a person for some idiotic, overzealous reason.

[PopCulturePooka]

You can.

But putting ALL children in a prison camp, removing them froms chools, giving piss poor health care and exposing them to violence and sexual assault on Australian soil?

Doesn't sit in my stomach well at all.

[DarkFire168]

I'm having a hard time imagining a government worse than the Bush administration. At least Australia isn't going around making up wars and killing thousands of people.

Making up wars? I don't care what you say, it isn't making things up when you give someone an ultimatum to disband their nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons set ups, they refuse and you attack. When someone feels threatened, they fight back (or at least, they should). Well over 90% of the US popluation was for the war at the beginning. Just because you're A) A foreigner and don't like our policies or B) A bleeding heart liberal intellectual elitist/facist doesn't mean you can say a war was started for made up reasons. His intel ops (the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.) all said the same thing FOREIGN intel ops were sending to him (MI5, RIA (or whatever they're called)). Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destuction. Saddam Hussein was funding terrorism. Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists and housing their camps both knowingly and willingly. Saddamn Hussein was violating human rights and lying to the UN and the world. So don't say he "made up" a reason to go to war. That's a bullshit answer.



Kurds were being exterminated in Turkey a while back.

[QUOTE=erbiumfiber
The US detention center in NJ has pretty appalling conditions from what I understand.

You don't understand very well. It's sickening to me that illegal immigrants have so many privileges in the US. They get nice air conditioned detention centers, good food, and are treated hospitably and graciously by the people who guard the compounds. They can sue for asylum. They retain all legal rights that the Constitution gives them the second they set foot on US soil. I'd like to see Mexico do that. There was a kid who died in a car crash over in Rocky Point 4 years or so ago, he went to ASU and was there on spring break, and the Mexican Government refused to release his body to his family unless they payed over 10K US dollars for it. If someone dies on American soil , and is a foreigner, their family can not only demand the body back for funeral rights (cost free), but they can SUE someone if they feel that person is responsible for their family members death. Pretty fucked up.

[QUOTE=erbiumfiber
But, hey, the US has more illegal immigrants than legal immigrants per year. Most people don't bother with asylum, it's much easier to just be an illegal immigrant.[/QUOTE]

True, very, very true.

[DarkFire168]

You can.

But putting ALL children in a prison camp, removing them froms chools, giving piss poor health care and exposing them to violence and sexual assault on Australian soil?

Doesn't sit in my stomach well at all.

I never said it shouldn't.

[Frayed]

The problem with your argument is the use of the term "asylum seeker" to describe illegal immigrants.

Close, but no cigar. these are individuals who are yet to have their application (or in the more drawn out cases, their (n)th appeal heard at court) processed to have their status changed from illegal immigrant to asylum seeker.

Sorry but the terminology you use is wrong. If their application for Asylum is successful they are no-longer 'Asylum seekers' as Asylum has been granted. They are then refugees.

UN definitions cited here: "A Refugee is a person recognised as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention/ 1967 Protocol or the 1969 OAU Convention.
An Asylum-seeker is a person whose application for asylum or refugee status is pending at any stage in the procedure or who is otherwise registered as an asylum-seeker." http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/html/facts_and_stats/stats.html

As I have already explained, seeking Asylum is not illegal according to International Law. If we didn't plan to honour International Law we shouldn't have signed the treaties.

The most massive majority of all detainees are not victims of persecution escaping certain death at the hands of evil dictators - they are simply in search of a better standard of living. While that is hardly a callous crime to commit, it is against most nations laws to say "well, I dont like my country. Ill live here instead. Even better, ill just sneak in and not tell anyone!".

Wrong. Conservative estimates suggest somewhere around 80% of Australian Asylum seekers are eventually granted refugee status. 20% is certainly not a majority

Popculturepooka, people like you make me absolutely and utterly sick to my stomach. Dont like Australia? Why dont you move your ass to Zimbabwe and see how much "better" it gets.

You can love your country, but hate its policy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'd like to point out that there ARE crazed kids in the world who do stupid things for evil people...
That may be true but there is no evidence that suggests Australian Asylum Seekers fit into this category. There is no evidence that they are a threat to the nation. Therefore they should not be held accountable for what is happening in other places.

[kyaa the catlord]

The places are foul. Sexual assaults, violence, suidcides and the like have taken place in these places.



Sounds like high school.

[Ichisan]

I don't know. It's a problem. What are you going to do with boatloads of people who turn up illegally and won't leave? What does the US do with Cuban boat people?

Whatever the govenment does it's screwed it seems to me.

Before criticising ask yourself what you'd do if a homeless person showed up on your front lawn one day. And then what would you do if more and more kept showing up day after day expecting to stay?

[kyaa the catlord]

Cuban boat people are returned unless they set foot on US soil, then they're allowed to stay. Unless Clinton is in the white house, then you take guns and raid homes to return children to Castro's hell.

[Ichisan]

Oh yeah and it's true enough that there are plenty of white European people living and working illegally in Australia and no one cares. I can testify that police on their very occasional sweeps were quite unconcerned about illegal white fruitpickers for instance, but would come down hard on any Asians they found.

It's racism but I don't believe it's simply racism. The backpackers are of course not merely white and English-speaking but overwhelmingly young and middle class too so they don't have dependents, they do have skills, and they have credit cards or Mummy and Daddy back home to clean up the mess if anything really goes wrong. The point is the government is highly unlikely to be faced with the responsibility of looking after them. But they're much more likely than the refugees to get sympathy, understanding, accommodation and jobs from the locals too.

[Ichisan]

Oh except for this one French person who insisted on getting in the police's face. I mean they caught him red-handed without a visa and would likely have let him off lightly but he had to start yelling and cursing so he got himself deported. :D

The rest of us stayed home that day and the police pretended not to know where we were camping.

[DarkFire168]

That may be true but there is no evidence that suggests Australian Asylum Seekers fit into this category. There is no evidence that they are a threat to the nation. Therefore they should not be held accountable for what is happening in other places.

I know that, but he acted like all children everywhere are innocent and no child would ever commit any kind of heinous act. That's simply untrue. I can understand why he'd be offended, and from the conditions he described I am too, but if they had simply done a better job of maintaining the detention centers, then I see no reason for the government to NOT check to make sure they have no affiliation with terrorist organizations or governments that Australia has problems with.

[Jai]

So you hate and detest Howard and his ministers and wish they would all die slow deaths for running the country a way you dont like.

At least Howard isnt a closet sociapathic maniac

[Jai]

Frayed, at this point we come to the typical conclusion of such an argument over this topic. Your definition of what counts as a refugee and my own opinion (which incidentally, matches the governments opinion) are simply worlds apart.

By opposing mandatory detention you are in essence supporting an open borders policy. Come here and walk free, we dont care. For security reasons, thankfully this will never happen.

[Frayed]

I know that, but he acted like all children everywhere are innocent and no child would ever commit any kind of heinous act. That's simply untrue. I can understand why he'd be offended, and from the conditions he described I am too, but if they had simply done a better job of maintaining the detention centers, then I see no reason for the government to NOT check to make sure they have no affiliation with terrorist organizations or governments that Australia has problems with.

I believe that kind of thing is covered in routine checks already. As already stated there has been no established link, therefore no need to continue detaining.

So you hate and detest Howard and his ministers and wish they would all die slow deaths for running the country a way you dont like.

At least Howard isnt a closet sociapathic maniac
Assuming this was aimed at me, please don't put words in my mouth. I don't wish death upon anyone. Just because I hate the policy of Howard and his cronies doesn't equate to me wishing death upon him. To see them all leave politics would suffice.

Frayed, at this point we come to the typical conclusion of such an argument over this topic. Your definition of what counts as a refugee and my own opinion (which incidentally, matches the governments opinion) are simply worlds apart.

By opposing mandatory detention you are in essence supporting an open borders policy. Come here and walk free, we dont care. For security reasons, thankfully this will never happen.

My definition was simply the one borrowed from International Law. Having signed the treaty the Australian Government also agreed to that definition. Unfortunately, as with many treaties, there is few sanctions if you then wish to ignore it.

No I am proposing humane treatment for Asylum seekers. This is not the same as an open borders policy. You could house Asylum seekers in controlled communities that doesn't involve lock and key. We have the technology to track Asylum seekers. We could let them out into boarding houses and allow them some measures of independence. Detention would only be needed for those individuals who demonstrate they are a risk of escape.

[Jai]

it was aimed at pooka frayed.

As for your illegal immigrants, the instant you sneak into this country you have broken our federal immigration laws. As such, these criminals can be, should be and are detained. Your international law would be applicable if these people wernt illegals, but what do you know, they are. Woops.

[yogi]

Its unfortunate what's happening to these illegals in Oz. And I think their treatment is not a good idea if you plan to let them in after, the resentment it would breed could easly make terroist out of a person. If thats(terroism) your concern. (I'm not concerned with terroism) I think housing them in a temporary communtiy is quite a good idea. (whoever said it) Give them a school and make them work while they wait. This would be humane and fair as it can be.

[Pierrot le Fou]

The second you allow asylum-seekers to go out on their own is the second the 20% of the illegals, who were going to be screwed anyway, bolt for it and hope they can live under the radar for a while. That's unacceptable.

So long as there are welfare systems in place, and people getting handouts from the gov't, there will need to be strict controls on immigration to prevent people from abusing the system and making it tank.

That's why the countries with the most welfare in place, like Sweden and whatnot, have the least amount of immigration. And everyone cheers about how great they are, but they're REAL hardasses in regards to immigration. People come to the countries where they have the best chance, and use the means that will give them the best chance. There are lots of people in REALLY bad spots out there. The Western countries CANNOT accept all those people when they're lacking skills and support structures other than the government.

Yes, the sad reality is that we cannot save everyone.

You may find that distasteful. I sure do. But if you think about it, that's the way the cookie crumbles and it has to be. We put systems in place to try to help as many people as possible, while deterring those people who simply want to mooch off the system. Sometimes that means crappy conditions and poor deals, but these people should really put some thought into the legal system of the country they're entering.

It ain't cheap to get to the US or Australia. A quick search for legal information would be a wise first step before spending all that money, shouldn't it?

[Frayed]

it was aimed at pooka frayed.

As for your illegal immigrants, the instant you sneak into this country you have broken our federal immigration laws. As such, these criminals can be, should be and are detained. Your international law would be applicable if these people wernt illegals, but what do you know, they are. Woops.

Just to clarify the meaning of the convention

"The Convention does protect those refugees who lost, left behind or could not obtain proper documentation and so entered a potential asylum country unlawfully. States are obliged not to impose penalties on those people as long as “they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.” http://www.unhcr.ch/1951convention/bad-guys.html
Now of course "without delay" and "good cause" are obviously up for debate, but actually entering the country illegally isn't a problem.
The second you allow asylum-seekers to go out on their own is the second the 20% of the illegals, who were going to be screwed anyway, bolt for it and hope they can live under the radar for a while. That's unacceptable.

The idea I had in mind regarding community living incorporated tracking devices. Specifically I saw that someone has developed these leg braces which are supposedly impossible to remove via brute force, and detect any attempts at tampering. Now I'm not naive enough to think these could never be removed, but those trying to flee would need to both flee with their whereabouts being tracked, and develop a way to remove/cloak these devices. Not an easy feat.

From what I've heard, people smugglers make all sorts of claims regarding the legal situation in Australia. Sure maybe Asylum seekers don't investigate the situation thoroughly enough, but it is not like they have easy access to the Internet or legal advice, particularly if they struggle with or don't speak the native language.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Of course they make those claims. But for the love of Christ, people smugglers are criminals, and trusting them is just folly. Trusting anyone unconditionally when shelling out money to them is also silly. The words caveat emptor apply here. If they don't heed common sense because their situation is so bad and they feel they don't have a choice, then they should be prepared to accept the consequences, and the Australian government isn't at fault, and shouldn't be held at fault for the actions of the people in those prisons.

I would hope that would be apparent, but from the sentiment in this thread, it doesn't seem to be. The suicide of a person who paid a smuggler to get to Australia due to his bogus claims of the streets being paved with gold or whatnot is NOT the fault of mandatory detention for 'asylum-seekers.' It's the fault of person who committed suicide.

As far as getting rid of the devices, do you really think that they are impossible to remove by brute force? If they are, then they will be HELLISHLY expensive. Furthermore, I'm sure there are a few whacked out freaks who would be willing to break their foot or cut it off to get a chance at a new life. And then you'd have folks blaming the Australian government for making people do THAT to themselves.

There are so many problems that just sink that idea before it starts, the primary being cost and consequences. It costs money to make things more liveable for those people, and invites more people to come because even if they're illegal, before getting sent back they get to work, live, make money, and have a potential shot to get in the country. Is that really something that Australians want to food the bill for? I sure as Hell know I wouldn't want to foot it as an American.

[Jai]

Just to clarify the meaning of the convention

"The Convention does protect those refugees who lost, left behind or could not obtain proper documentation and so entered a potential asylum country unlawfully. States are obliged not to impose penalties on those people as long as “they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.” http://www.unhcr.ch/1951convention/bad-guys.html
Now of course "without delay" and "good cause" are obviously up for debate, but actually entering the country illegally isn't a problem.



Actually, entering the country illegally is the problem, presenting themselves without delay to the authorities and showing cause is the solution.

Just how many detainees do you think volunteered themselves to the authorities? Somewhere close enough to 0% that you could call the rest "rounding error"?

[Frayed]

Pierrot: If you keep someone in detention for so long that they're depression advances and they commit suicide that is the fault of the Australian Government as they have an obligation to the people they detain regardless of whether you see them as criminals or asylum seekers. I'm not talking milk and cookies and fluffy pillows, simply a decent standard of living, and reasonable period for processing claims.
Also as you have already stated these individuals have little knowledge of the country they are entering so how will a higher standard of living encourage more to come?
Please reread my point about "Not being naive enough to believe they are impossible to remove". I've had the courteousy to read your argument. The cost of these devices is probably no more prohibitive then the cost of detention, since detention is not the cheapest solution.
Apart from that we obviously have a different orientation towards people. I'm willing to think the best of people, and then deal with the consequences of those who do not meet those expectations. You seem to prefer suspicion and treating everyone based on the assumption that some will have act with ill intentions. Not much point debating that further since I'm sure we both prefer our own orientation.

Sorry Jai but again you are ignoring International Law. Entering the country illegally is not a problem as outlined in the convention, and as shown above. As much as you may like to ignore the convention it doesn't change its wording or meaning.
Do you have any proof for your 0% claim? Australia's policy of recent has been to intercept Asylum seekers on the boat prior to them setting foot in the country. At what point are they able to inform the authorities "without delay" when they have yet to enter the country to contact authorities.
Again, since the issue between us is the respect we give to International Law, we are simply having circular arguments.

Unless there is something new added to the debate, rehashing the same issues with different phrasing is pointless. I'll just agree to disagree.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Because along with the shitloads of people with no information, there are people WITH information who want to go someplace better. And if they are guaranteed a decent standard of living while they wait for the lottery to declare them a winner in Australia, or they've earned money towards taking a second shot, then far more will come.

You're being quite unrealistic about the amount of people who would love to move to another country.

Look at the immigration figures from Mexico to the US, or Cuba to the US. They have a good chance of making it through, or at least staying under the radar, so they take that risk in huge numbers every year. You really think that it wouldn't change those figures if the US started allowing boat people from Cuba to land on US soil and have decent living conditions while taking the US government to court for asylum? Do you really think that the US, if it could handle that extra immigration, WANTS to turn away people on makeshift rafts travelling the 80 miles from Cuba to the US before they become the US' responsibility?

Do you TRULY believe that these governments are so callous as to turn away immigrants when they could handle the influx?

You strike me as overly optimistic to a huge degree. Goes well with the international law.

[Darkblade]

Ill just drop a line or two in here. I live in a country that doesnt have that sort of law, and is currently letting in everything that comes across the border.

Its not bad that people want to move here, but moving here and keeping the traditions that they were so eager to leave behind is a strain on society (the society they just moved to).

If you move to a country with the intention of living there, you better learn the language. If you plan on staying there, your children will be born with that nationality. If you cant deal with that, you need to go back to wherever you came from.

They dont have a detention law, and now you can barely find any people that ARE from this country originally. And its not just people looking for a better life. They are looking to escape oppression in their home countries while at the same time carrying on the same crap practices they were trying to run from.

Its not the detention law thats the problem, its the effort put into and the manner in which it is being carried out, and the lack of handling for exceptional cases.

If qualified people were actively helping process these people in a timely manner, the detention in and of itself would not be an issue.

[Jai]

Frayed, all I did was take the critical points of your statement and reorder them. Entering the country illegally is against the law, unless you do x. Therefor entering the country illegally is still "the" issue, under international law.

As your aware, the boats intercepted before they make it into Australian territory are simply not allowed to enter the country. Obviously as a result they are not detained, making the entire point moot in the discussion at hand.