Australia's detention regime sets out to make asylum seekers suffer

[Xenon4017]

If I knew what you were talking about, then maybe.

 

When you said "they were brave.....fighting for principles", to whom were you referring exactly? I assumed you meant the Allied soldiers. You could have meant the Germans, or Austrians, or even the Turks, I suppose. But I'm struggling to find a valid principle of merit in WW1.

[flag of convenience]

If I knew what you were talking about, then maybe.

 

Or how about even the principle of invading foreign lands and leaving the people to their fate as has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[flag of convenience]

I see there are long queues gathering at Calais again, of "asylum seekers" trying to escape France to get to the UK. Are there really escaping persecution in France and all the other European countries they have crossed, or are they just drawn by the overly generous benefits system in the UK. I think the latter. It seems that some are rather more gullible and refuse to believe that anybody could do this for economic reasons and would believe anyone that says they are fleeing persecution.

 

As for the first post, I am disgusted that anyone would look to draw a parallel with WW1. How insulting to all those that gave their lives. They were brave, they stood and fought for their country, for principles and for future generations. They did not look to bail out, seeking a better life whilst abandoning the vulnerable. Which is exactly what those currently coming in on boats are doing, if we were to believe in this persecution that is.

 

I am very happy for Australia to take in people on humanitarian grounds. I don't know what the right number is, but I am sure I would not bat an eyelid if they trebled or quadrupled the current intake, times by ten even. But I would like them to come through proper channels, not because they can pay for boat passage.

 

Even I wouldn't advocate a ten fold increase in asylum seekers as permanent residents. The country couldn't cope with the degree fair to al concerned. Now granting folk safe haven for a duration is something else. Why should the developing world be lumbered with tens of thousands?

 

A fair number would be around 25,000 in my opinion, permanent refugees. In times of crisis the number could be lifted and perhaps lowered a little when not. Australia being a major migrant inducing nation has the ability to easily absorb such numbers and more could/should be settled in country locations, many of which are rather void of migrants at the moment as well as declining populations.

 

Come now let's not over do the First World War. All sides claimed principles and most serving were but pawns in the deadly 'game' of war. Wrong to somehow attempt to connect people suffering persecution with that conflict. Jewish folk certainly fled during the following war often to be met by similar reactions to the present day.

[flag of convenience]

It's become clear to me the vast majority of threads i post in now are ones like this.

 

the government could do absolutely anything they like and guess what, you me anyone cant do a damn thing about it.

 

except type, talk and whinge.

 

democracy, the people running the country.... hows that going?

 

still its something to do. lol

 

Well no the government cannot do anything they would like thanks to the Senate. Opinion polls and negative feedback all play a part in bringing the government back to earth to an extent as the three year election cycle is never far away.

[flag of convenience]

And why were those arguments wrong? I'm not arguing for a return to the White Australia policy, nor an end to Australia's official refugee policy. Just pointing out how much Australia and Britain for that matter changed post war, so don't try and tell me that men and women fought for change, rather than preserving the status quo.

 

Incidentally, you might want to look at a few of our Asian neighbours and examine their immigration policies to see just how welcoming they are of people from other races and nationalities.

 

Just as well as it would be a non starter. Even Howard former Lib PM, caused a stir in 88 claiming the rate of Asian immigration was too high back then to win public acceptance. He years later apologised for those comments. But it is no difficult to imagine a lot of those calling for even tougher sanctions on asylum seekers would have been the vanguard to stop the lifting of White Australia Policy at the time.

 

Those that fought did so with little choice at the time. One thing in life is certain is change. Impossible to maintain a status quo where nothing changes.

 

And yes I know the immigration policies very well of a lot of out Asian neighbours with thoughts of moving there. A number do and many more can be expected to in the future to ensure the retirement dollar goes further.

[flag of convenience]

If you asked most men and women of my father and mothers' generation, whether 'Tommy Atkins' or 'Digger', they fought to save their respective countries from totalitarianism, and seeing what has happened in both their countries since the war is an act of betrayal. You would beyond crazy if you think many of them would think that Tony Abbott has betrayed what they fought and died for.

 

Hopefully they were folk of decency that fought for fairness and compassion in the treatment of the vulnerable. Also not for the locking up of women and kids with out an end in sight and not for punishing folk seeking refuge with a right to a fair trial.

If not the effort was largely wasted.

[Harpodom]

Just dipping in to say I admire flag for his patience and persistence in dealing with the haters. Keep up the good work mate.

 

A few weeks ago I started a thread on the issue of asylum seekers, specifically the handling of the '153' Tamil seekers, who were intercepted in international waters, imprisoned for a month on a customs ship in windowless decks, allowed 3 hours daylight per day, children separated from parents, eventually transferred to Cocos, then to Curtin and finally on to Nauru in a secret overnight transfer. Actually there are 157: as it is part of Operation Sovereign Borders, 'on water matters' are state secrets, so no one actually knew the number apart from Scotty, Abbo, Brando, Bisho, Cambo et al.

 

Anyway, the interesting thing was the poll on that thread. Despite all the haters spewing forth their bile, the majority, presumably reluctant to post their views, were uncomfortable with the treatment dished out.

 

But haters gotta hate, I spose.

 

Unsubscribing and logging out again.

 

As you were.

[Xenon4017]

Hopefully they were folk of decency that fought for fairness and compassion in the treatment of the vulnerable. Also not for the locking up of women and kids with out an end in sight and not for punishing folk seeking refuge with a right to a fair trial.

 

I don't think fairness and compassion was much in evidence in the latter stages of the war. And as for not wanting to punish folk, just look at the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. Punitive reparations to be borne by the defeated generation and their descendents. Tommy Atkins didn't draw up the treaty, but do you think the groundswell of public opinion was against making their foes pay for the damage plus a bit more to compensate for the loss of blood?

[Guest littlesarah]

It's become clear to me the vast majority of threads i post in now are ones like this.

 

the government could do absolutely anything they like and guess what, you me anyone cant do a damn thing about it.

 

except type, talk and whinge.

 

democracy, the people running the country.... hows that going?

 

still its something to do. lol

 

Actually, there are people getting together to organise non-violent protest: https://www.facebook.com/LoveMakesAWayForAsylumSeekers In this case, Christians occupying offices & meeting to come up with ways to make their point peacefully. And it's not just those of faith - there were rallies in April.

 

You could contact your local MP, the Immigration Minister, your Senator, etc, as a start...

[Harpodom]

Actually, there are people getting together to organise non-violent protest: https://www.facebook.com/LoveMakesAWayForAsylumSeekers In this case, Christians occupying offices & meeting to come up with ways to make their point peacefully. And it's not just those of faith - there were rallies in April.

 

You could contact your local MP, the Immigration Minister, your Senator, etc, as a start...

 

Thanks for that. I'd also like to mention the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre in Melbourne, who do fantastic work for refugees and asylum seekers.

 

They are a registered charity and you can set up monthly donations, or just a one off.

 

Sooner or later the hating has to stop and a more compassionate alternative needs to be found. The boats haven't stopped and they never will.

[Raul Senise]

See here for some perspective of Australia’s treatment of refugees.

[akiralx]

457 visa holders can't just come into the country for free, and if they fail to get a job or lose their job, they are on their own. No dole for them. Unlike their Aussie counterparts, and unlike the illegals, who all get free this and free that.

 

Er, 'illegals' don't get anything from the state - because they are illegal. I'd hate to think you were just lumping refugees and illegal immigrants together.

[Paul1Perth]

But one million migrants in three years doesn't bother you? The over use of 457's in direct competition with Australian workers remains ok? But a few thousand asylum seekers creates concern. Odd.

 

The 457's have a job to come to and leave when it's finished.Totally different.

[MARYROSE02]

Thanks for that. I'd also like to mention the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre in Melbourne, who do fantastic work for refugees and asylum seekers.

 

They are a registered charity and you can set up monthly donations, or just a one off.

 

Sooner or later the hating has to stop and a more compassionate alternative needs to be found. The boats haven't stopped and they never will.

 

 

You would rather the people smugglers continue to make their vile profits from sending helpless people out on overcrowded and unseaworthy boats and of course, drown in large numbers, rather than stop the flow and stop the deaths? Not much compassion there.

 

In any case, Howard 'stopped the boats' as did Abbott, unless you are saying that one boat in six months is a sign of failure?

 

 

And again, I am NOT anti-refugee. Australia has an official refugee intake and I agree with it, and Australia, NOT the people smugglers decide who comes here.

 

 

We have to have some controls on the numbers who come in. I challenge you. Name a figure you believe Australia can cope with?

[flag of convenience]

You would rather the people smugglers continue to make their vile profits from sending helpless people out on overcrowded and unseaworthy boats and of course, drown in large numbers, rather than stop the flow and stop the deaths? Not much compassion there.

 

In any case, Howard 'stopped the boats' as did Abbott, unless you are saying that one boat in six months is a sign of failure?

 

 

And again, I am NOT anti-refugee. Australia has an official refugee intake and I agree with it, and Australia, NOT the people smugglers decide who comes here.

 

 

We have to have some controls on the numbers who come in. I challenge you. Name a figure you believe Australia can cope with?

 

Sounds like you a reading the script spoken word for word by Morison. I really don't know why I bother with this forum. You know it's allowed to think outside the box. As of now it is still unlikely to evoke a midnight knock response and you sent packing back to Portsmouth for being a danger to the state (haven't been to a politically sensitive state I take it) It really sounds sound like it though. The constant repartition regardless of response. No wonder this lot in office needs to do no more than throw a few slogans around.

 

Australia's reduced official intake has little to do with folk seeking asylum. If Iran, Pakistan, Kenya, Guinea and hoards of others thought the same they'd be millions perishing through an inability to flee potential persecution as there would be no country to go. A figure has been given just as the need for asylum does not necessary warrant a permanent stay.

[Harpodom]

I really don't know why I bother with this forum.

 

I feel exactly the same mate. I know others feel the same for exactly the same reasons too.

 

Too many people afraid or unwilling to put their head above the parapet on this issue.

[tea4too]

I feel exactly the same mate. I know others feel the same for exactly the same reasons too.

 

Too many people afraid or unwilling to put their head above the parapet on this issue.

 

I’ve been a bit reluctant to post tbh, as this is specifically about Australian politics and in a way I felt it wasn’t my parapet to stick my head above.But I have followed the thread, as I wondered how people would respond to the link posted within the OP. When the chief immigration psychiatrist says that the immigration department ‘deliberately harms vulnerable detainees in a process that is akin to torture’ - I sort of expected that to be the focus of any posts that followed.

 

 

But the discussion so far has touched on previous wars, deserving and undeserving immigrants, the politics of asylum - with very little mention of the current treatment of people in detention centres where the atmosphere is described as “inherently toxic”. The article in the OP makes uncomfortable reading, particularly when you consider that around 80% of asylum applications are ultimately judged to be genuine. Vulnerable people, including children are being treated in a way that designed to cause suffering, and to all intents and purposes this is being done in the name of the Australian electorate. And tbh I don’t understand how anyone can accept that as being ok. For whatever reason. Tx

[Harpodom]

Well said.

 

Unfortunately you cannot have a sensible conversation on the issue without facing the usual $hit storm of slogans, half truths, lies and propaganda from haters, usually pebble dashed into a post with such volume and ferocity that you don't know where to start in terms of correcting them with common sense, logic, ethics and just simple humanity.

 

Its been a PR dream for both major political parties. Neither offers a shred of hope that Australian government might start acting in the spirit of the refugee convention.

 

But with regard to Dr Young, the psychiatrist in the OP, his assessment comes as absolutely no surprise: detention is designed to break people psychologically, until they go mad, commit suicide or return to the place they fled from. So in that regard, he just confirmed that detention is fulfilling its purpose.

 

Depressing, but true.

 

I’ve been a bit reluctant to post tbh, as this is specifically about Australian politics and in a way I felt it wasn’t my parapet to stick my head above.But I have followed the thread, as I wondered how people would respond to the link posted within the OP. When the chief immigration psychiatrist says that the immigration department ‘deliberately harms vulnerable detainees in a process that is akin to torture’ - I sort of expected that to be the focus of any posts that followed.

 

 

But the discussion so far has touched on previous wars, deserving and undeserving immigrants, the politics of asylum - with very little mention of the current treatment of people in detention centres where the atmosphere is described as “inherently toxic”. The article in the OP makes uncomfortable reading, particularly when you consider that around 80% of asylum applications are ultimately judged to be genuine. Vulnerable people, including children are being treated in a way that designed to cause suffering, and to all intents and purposes this is being done in the name of the Australian electorate. And tbh I don’t understand how anyone can accept that as being ok. For whatever reason. Tx

[Guest241083]

.........I too have followed this thread.........

.........and have tried to read as much ,from as many different sources.......to gain an understanding.....

.........so please forgive me if you recognise a phrase......thought......idea.....

........it's one that must of stuck in my mind......!

 

.......the sad plight of the asylum seeker.......

.......the desperate situation they are put in.....

.......fleeing persecution......

.........and finding a life of detention.......uncertainty.......and ultimately despair......

 

.........Australia has much to be ashamed if in its treatment of the vulnerable people that risk so much......

.........it is in breach of human rights.....

..........to not be able to see the end ......the finish of your term in detention......must and does have negative mental consequences.....!

........children growing up......locked behind fences.......!

..........to of escaped one life of horror.........to experience another.......

 

.........perhaps we all need to pop our heads above the parapet.......

.........and say no.....to the treatment of our fellow man.......

........because there but for the grace of.....

..........do as you would be done by......

..........do no harm......

...........all qualities we teach our children.....live by......

...........and IMO......it should encompass all.......

...........these are people.....families......children.......

............just like us.....and ours.......tink X

[Harpodom]

It's interesting to know how many voices of reason there are out there, which go unreported in the mainstream media.

 

For example, this statement from the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference pulls no punches. And this is Tony Abbott's 'lot', too.

 

 

08

MAY

 

 

[h=1]Statement by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference on Asylum Seekers[/h]

8 May 2014

The Australian Catholic Bishops have been involved in many ways with asylum seekers. Some of us have detention centres close to home, and we have worked hard to ensure that asylum seekers receive proper pastoral care and human assistance. We renew that commitment here.

The Bishops have also intervened with Government in an attempt to make policy more respectful of human dignity and basic human rights, which today are being seriously violated.

We now make this urgent plea for a respect for the rights of asylum seekers, not only in Government circles but in the Australian community more broadly. Federal decision-makers in both major parties have made their decisions and implemented their policies because they think they have the support of the majority of Australians. Therefore, we want to speak to the entire Australian community.

The current policy has about it a cruelty that does no honour to our nation. How can this be when Australians are so generous in so many situations where human beings are in strife? Think of the way the Vietnamese boat people were welcomed in the 1970s and 80s. The question becomes more pointed when we think of the politicians who are making and implementing the decisions. They are not cruel people. Yet they have made decisions and are implementing policies which are cruel. How can this be so?

Island dwellers like Australians often have an acute sense of the “other” or the “outsider” – and that is how asylum seekers are being portrayed. They are the dangerous “other” or “outsider” to be feared and resisted because they are supposedly violating our borders.

 

Do racist attitudes underlie the current policy? Would the policy be the same if the asylum seekers were fair-skinned Westerners rather than dark-skinned people, most of whom are of “other” religious and cultural backgrounds? Is the current policy perhaps bringing to the surface not only a xenophobia in us but also a latent racism? The White Australia policy was thought to be dead and buried, but perhaps it has mutated and is still alive.

There may also be the selfishness of the rich. Not everyone in Australia is rich, but we are a rich nation by any reckoning. The asylum seekers are often portrayed as economic refugees coming to plunder our wealth. But the fact is that most of them are not being “pulled” to Australia by a desire for wealth but are being “pushed” from their homeland and other lands where there is no life worth living. No-one wants them.

The policy can win acceptance only if the asylum seekers are kept faceless and nameless. It depends upon a process of de-humanisation. Such a policy would be widely rejected if the faces and names were known. Bishops have seen the faces; we know the names; we have heard the stories. That is why we say now, Enough of this institutionalised cruelty.

We join with the Catholic Bishops of Papua New Guinea who have voiced their strong opposition to the use of Manus Island for detention. They have urged Australia “to find a more humane solution to people seeking asylum”. We do not accept the need for off-shore processing. But even if it continues, it surely does not require such harshness.

The Government and Opposition want to stop the boats and thwart the people-smugglers. But does this require such cruelty? Could not the same goals be achieved by policies, which were less harsh, even humane – policies which respected not only our international obligations but also basic human rights? Can we not achieve a balance between the needs of people in desperate trouble and the electoral pressures faced by politicians? We believe we can; indeed we must.

The Australian Catholic Bishops call on parliamentarians of all parties to turn away from these policies, which shame Australia and to take the path of a realistic compassion that deals with both human need and electoral pressure. We call on the nation as a whole to say no to the dark forces, which make these policies possible. The time has come to examine our conscience and then to act differently.

- See more at: http://mediablog.catholic.org.au/?p=2892#sthash.M0A9yzNe.dpuf

[Harpodom]

More voices of reason. Hard to argue that the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Royal Australian College of Physicians and the Australian Medical Association have any vested political interests, though I've heard that very same argument applied by the haters.

 

Such is their need to discredit any voices of dissent.

 

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/doctors-call-for-independent-medical-body-to-audit-offshore-detention-centres

 

 

 

Three peak Australian medical bodies have renewed calls for the establishment of an independent medical advisory body to audit the treatment of asylum seekers in detention, following shocking evidence at the national inquiry into children in immigration detention on Thursday.

 

Dr Peter Young, the former medical director of mental health services at IHMS – the private company providing medical services in all Australian onshore and offshore detention centres, told the inquiry that the immigration department had asked him to withdraw figures that showed the huge rates of mental health problems amongst asylum seekers children in detention.

 

The figures showed that asylum seeker children measured significantly higher the HoNOSCA scale (Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for Child and Adolescent mental health) than the national average. 15% of asylum seeker children in detention on the mainland and on Christmas Island were scored three or four on the scale for symptoms of emotional distress – Young said a score of two was “clinically significant”.

 

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) and the Australian Medical Association (AMA) all issued statements following Young’s evidence, expressing concern at the revelations.

 

Professor Nicholas Talley said that the statistics themselves were “deeply concerning” but added: “I am even more alarmed at the evidence from Dr Peter Young that the federal government requested figures showing the true extent of these mental health concerns be suppressed,”.

“We urge the federal government to be open and transparent regarding the health of children in detention.”

In December last year the Coalition government disbanded the independent health group (Ihag) tasked with monitoring the health and conditions for asylum seekers in detention.

Just days later Guardian Australia published the contents of a damning letter of concern signed by 15 doctors on Christmas Island that revealed “gross departures” from medical norms in health services in detention.

Talley said that the revelations at the day’s hearing reinforced that disbanding Ihag was “the wrong decision”.

 

“Expert independent immigration health advice is needed now more than ever. The government must start acting on the recommendations and advice of health experts to protect children in immigration detention,” Professor Talley said.

The RACGP, the peak body representing GPs accused the government of failing to uphold its ethical obligations in accordance with international human rights law.

Dr Peter Young, former medical director for mental health at IHMS, gives evidence at the inquiry into children in immigration detention in Sydney on Thursday. Photograph: Joel Carrett/AAPAn RACGP doctor, Liz Marles, said the college had a responsibility to advocate for doctors working with asylum seekers as well as the asylum seekers themselves.

“There is a substantial body of evidence, which demonstrates that detention, particularly prolonged detention causes negative physical and mental health consequences for asylum seekers,” she said.

“We know there are more humane ways of processing those who arrive on our shores seeking asylum and it is our duty to ensure these people, particularly children, are treated ethically and with respect.

She added that access to medical services was a fundamental human right.

“The majority of those in detention have unique mental and physical healthcare needs as a consequence of the circumstances they have fled and these are further exacerbated by a prolonged period of uncertainty in detention,” she said.

At the hearing on Thursday, immigration department secretary Martin Bowles said he was unaware of requests to withdraw the statistics and added that if any departmental staff had behaved inappropriately, he would act.

“The Australian Government must treat asylum seekers as a humanitarian rather than a political issue,” she said.

The AMA has long called for better medical treatment of asylum seekers. Their official statement calls for humanity to be “restored to an otherwise inhumane approach to asylum seekers”.

Their president, associate professor Brian Owler, said the AMA was alarmed at the reports of serious and prolonged mental health issues affecting child asylum seekers in particular.

“The AMA has long called for openness and honesty about the state of physical and mental health of all asylum seekers in detention in Australian care,” he said.

“It is our duty to act compassionately and ethically to these vulnerable people, many of whom have fled conflict and danger.

 

He reiterated the association’s previous calls for a highly qualified, independent panel of medical experts to regularly visit detention centres, assess the health services and the health status of detainees, and report back directly to the Parliament.

“Such a process would help the government fulfil its human rights obligations in regard to asylum seekers,” Owler said.

[MARYROSE02]

If all of these nasty things are true, or even half of them, or even one per cent of them, why, NOBODY would ever want to come to Australia ever again as an illegal immigrant.

 

Wouldn't that be wonderful!

 

No it wouldn't and the Australian people will tell Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison in no uncertain terms at the next election.

[Guest241083]

.......worth a read.......IMO.......

 

....ASYLUM SEEKERS10 Jul 2014

Confronting The Awful Truth About Our Politics On Asylum Seekers

By Ben Eltham

 

 

Keywords:

scott morrisonben elthamasylum seekerselizabeth o'shea

As the legal standoff continues, Ben Eltham examines the political implications of the Sri Lankan asylum seeker crisis.

 

 

On Tuesday, I looked at how Australia had reached such a dismaying situation. Today, I want to examine why.

 

 

War, repression, chaos and poverty have ever been the cause of people on the move. The current international architecture of refugee law, framed by the Refugee Convention, arose in the aftermath of the vast mass migrations that followed the Second World War.

 

 

The refugee flows we see today are no different in quality, and certainly less in quantity than those experienced globally 60 years ago.

 

 

The Syrian civil war, for example, has seen millions flee to neighbouring Jordan.

 

 

In central America, the collapse of internal security in Honduras and Guatemala is spurring similar refugee flows north.

 

 

And in our own region, war and insurgency in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan have similarly spurred large numbers to leave their homelands seeking safety.

 

 

Writing in Overland, Elizabeth O’Shea notes the uncomfortable parallels between the boats that Australia now refuse, to the refugees fleeing Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.

 

 

“The Refugee Convention originated from the plight of the MS St Louis, a German transatlantic liner that set sail from Hamburg, Germany, for Havana, Cuba in 1939,” O’Shea reminds us.

 

 

The St Louis carried mainly Jewish passengers fleeing the Nazi regime; the Cuban and US governments both refused to accept most of them as refugees.

 

 

Eventually, the St Louis was forced to sail back to Europe, where a significant proportion later perished in the Holocaust.

 

 

That’s worth remembering as we struggle to understand the current crisis. One way to do so is to look at the way certain sections of Australia’s public, media and political classes have reacted to the asylum seeker issue, and what that means for the future.

 

 

Reaction to the latest cruelty by the Australian government against asylum seekers on the high seas falls into roughly three categories.

 

 

The first is outrage. For those motivated by empathy and generosity towards innocent people fleeing persecution, the actions of the Australian government are nothing short of state-sponsored torture.

 

 

This is the position of much of the liberal left, including many lawyers and human rights activists.

 

 

A large group of lawyers signed a letter this week stating that Operation Sovereign Borders “clearly violates international law”.

 

 

For those who lament the hard-heartedness of the current system, recent developments have been in equal parts depressing and affronting.

 

 

The second kind of reaction is befuddlement. This is essentially Labor’s position, as it twists and squirms in response to the obvious truth that the Rudd and Gillard governments laid the groundwork for the oppression we’re now seeing.

 

 

Watching Labor frontbenchers like Richard Marles and Tanya Plibersek in recent days has been a dispiriting affair.

 

 

Trapped in the contradictions of its own brutal policies, Labor is trying to maintain the fiction of holding the government to account, even while it pursues policies only slightly worse than those of the Coalition.

 

 

Labor in opposition is only just managing to keep up appearances, as it simultaneously argues that the government has been secretive and brutal, even while reiterating its commitment to mandatory detention, offshore processing, Manus Island and all the rest.

 

 

The third reaction is satisfaction. This, roughly, describes the Coalition’s position, and indeed much of the voting public.

 

 

For those hostile to immigration itself, or at any rate the kind of immigration which brings people we don’t like to our shores in ways we don’t approve of, current developments are simply a matter of just desserts.

 

 

Send them back, the faster the better. You can find this view in any focus group or social media forum – even in the comments section of New Matilda.

 

 

As with other emotive issues like climate change, no cries of anguish or patient explanations of the facts will budge ingrained prejudice or shift self-satisfied confirmation bias.

 

 

For the xenophobes and the political hard-heads, the issue is the simple: deterrence will work. It’s the familiar transmogrification of guilt into blame.

 

 

This is why both major parties have clung so tightly to the justification of saving lives at sea. Confronted with the dreadful death toll of those drowning on the way to Australia, the psychological response has been to blame the people smugglers, and by extension, anyone who advocates for a humane response.

 

 

Such nostrums fit well with the conservative tendency to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups, and to circle the wagons against perceived threats.

 

 

They also play well with the process argument, which makes the entirely flawed argument that seaborne asylum seekers are jumping the queue.

 

 

And, of course, there’s the racism. When politicians talk about “controlling borders” and the need for an “orderly” immigration process, they are in fact dog-whistling to those who fear the unregulated invasion of teeming Asian masses.

 

 

It’s a fear as old as White Australia itself.

 

 

Parsed in this way, we can see why asylum seekers are such a divisive, and simultaneously insoluble political issue.

 

 

While it is probably true that harsh policies towards asylum seekers are far from the electoral trump card they are often portrayed, you can hardly point to a deep reservoir of sympathy and popular support for those travelling to Australia by boat.

 

 

As long as the satisfied and the befuddled outnumber the outraged by a fair margin, it seems clear that there will be little popular will to restore a more liberal and generous system for those seeking refuge on our shores.

 

 

As a result, Australia is currently at risk of sacrificing many of the hard-won liberal freedoms that so many of us take for granted.

 

 

It’s not just repression of those travelling here by boat. The ongoing brutality of the current system is slowly corrupting the executive as well, as the government seeks ever more inventive ways to circumvent the rule of law.

 

 

The very fact that we are only finding out key facts about the current situation via a High Court injunction tells you just how seriously key values of democratic scrutiny and accountability have already been compromised.

 

 

There are lessons here for all of us, if we care.

 

 

Australian progressives must confront the uncomfortable reality that it was the Australian Labor Party – the only party of the centre-left capable of forming government – that put in place much of the architecture of the current brutality.

 

 

Some Labor supporters will inevitably leak to the Greens over the issue. But the hard truth remains that many ALP voters applaud tough measures on asylum seekers.

 

 

The progressives who support asylum seekers remain a small minority. No diatribes about the “political classes” can conceal this fact.

 

 

For Australian liberals of the “small l” variety – if there are any left worthy of the name – the current impasse must also confront.

 

 

The values of liberalism – individual freedom, the rule of law, and the enterprise of individuals - are precisely what we are denying asylum seekers, openly and blatantly.

 

 

We’ve long known there aren’t many liberals in the Liberal Party. Nothing explains better the emptiness of the freedom loving rhetoric of groups such as the Institute of Public Affairs than their shameful silence over the illegal incarceration of innocents seeking a better life.

 

 

Tim Wilson, Commissioner for Freedom: where are you now?

 

 

For conservatives, the satisfaction of “solving” the asylum seeker problem may prove fleeting.

 

 

This issue will go on to cause the Coalition endless trouble. It won’t be a vote winner in 2016.

 

 

Asylum seekers are a stain on this government, just as on the last government, and soon there will be a horrible tragedy that will make even hardliners appalled.

 

 

Moreover, the brutality that the government seems to revel in risks highlighting its other policies of brutality closer to home.

 

 

If voters start to connect the dots between a government monstering vulnerable asylum seekers, and a government monstering vulnerable middle Australia, it may find the issue blowing back in a most uncomfortable manner.

 

 

Nor have the boats actually stopped. The current legal showdown in the High Court is all about that fact: a direct consequence of the government’s desperation to prevent a boat arriving at Christmas Island, thereby disproving Scott Morrison’s empty boast that he is the boat stopper.

 

 

If Morrison thinks he is winning the politics of this issue, he is sadly mistaken.

 

 

Rather than a pathway to higher glory in the conservative cause, the most likely outcome for Scott Morrison is further scandal, followed by an ignominious reshuffle.

 

 

Immigration is the graveyard of ministers; only Morrison’s hubris prevents him from realising this.

 

 

Asylum seekers are a complex, multifaceted and hugely difficult issue. As I argued two years ago, there is no easy solution or quick political fix that can “solve” the asylum seeker problem.

 

 

In fact, it can’t be solved.

[Harpodom]

"The third reaction is satisfaction. This, roughly, describes the Coalition’s position, and indeed much of the voting public."

 

I wasn't around in the time of the White Australia Policy, but I imagine it was much the same scenario back then.

 

You still see vestiges (maybe not vestiges actually) of that attitude today, among comments sections of online newspapers: lots of Australians point the finger at the UK as an example of the failure of multiculturalism and say we don't want that here.

 

The conservative right want to live in a time warp, never changing, never evolving, when the obvious truth is societies are always evolving and changing over time.

 

The White Australia Policy seems hopelessly anachronistic (and racist) to any reasonable person nowadays. In time the policy of mandatory detention will be viewed in the same light.

 

The White Australia Policy was eventually stopped, but it took political leaders with guts and principles, as well as genuine leadership skills to turn the tide. I don't see those leaders in the current ALP set up.

[MARYROSE02]

Australia has always welcomed refugees and other migrants, unlike many other countries which often operate their own version of 'White Australia' to this day. As usual, we are expected to maintain a higher standard.

 

I'm not racist and nor am I opposed to our official refugee programme. But I am opposed to people smugglers and economic migrants posing as refugees.

 

If Australia was becoming as nasty as some here say, then people would stop wanting to come here. There's no way I would want to live somewhere nasty.

 

Either we operate a policy which restricts the numbers of people coming here, or we drop all restrictions and let all who want to come here in. Which is it to be? There are no half measures.