Kostya

Why ask for an absolute answer. Personally I believe the amount of asylum seekers is not determined solely by this variant. I cannot give you a Yes or No answer, I said maybe because I am unsure.

I do not believe it is just to hold them in 5 Star hotels, but I believe it is better, and if people are going to persist in demanding that they are going to be held in detention, then at least they deserve to be housed in proper facilities. This is not what I think is just, but I much prefer it to the current situation. If my 'left wing kinfolk' were to protest that situation they can feel free, that is not my concern, nor do I endorse their approach, dogma or methodology, so as I have already warned you, refrain from patronising me.
How do you know he is guilty of one? But, for the sake of argument, let's presume this character actuall murdered 50 babies. Now we don't know that, we can't prove it, I'd say that that constitutes reasonable doubt. Not that that matters anyhow, since he hasn't been tried, found guilty by a jury and sentenced formally to jail time. He is being held NOT for murdering 50 babies, but for the fact that he might have committed a crime in the past and therefore might not be a legitimate asylum seeker and therefore might be an illegal immigrant. Now I agree that this baby killer is a despicable human being, and that he ought to be brought to justice, but his act of immigrating illegally is hardly justification for his incarceration. Essentially am I to believe that you are advocating wholesale the policy of incarcerating a person on suspicion that they might have committed a crime? How is this just?
It certainly is far from you to question the honesty of a man trying to hide from immigration officials, that is if he did try to hide from immigration officials, I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the article at all. Let's just for the sake of argument presume he WAS trying to hide from the immigration officials. Now if I'm a perfectly honest fellow, and I'm coming into Australia and I absolutely know that regardless of my honesty and innocence I will be detained for certain. Do I really wish to be detained? Not at all. How could I evade this distasteful experience, I suppose I would evade the guards. Is this not a plausible situation? Is it not possible that in fact this man could be the most honest man on the planet and still try to evade immigration officials?

Interesting. I would rather a 1000 innocent men be punished than let one murderer go free. Basically you're saying it's ok to incarcerate a population in order to prevent 0.1% of that population being free? You're saying it's ok to deprive 999 individuals of their, who are completely innocent in order to ensure that 1 person is not allowed to go free? Now let's just, for the sake of argument, create a hypothetical town, this town is called Brownsville, it has 1001 inhabitants, Brownsville is has really strict traffic laws, and nobody goes in or out between the hours of 6am and 6pm, let's just presume this is followed to the letter by all. Now, one morning at 5.59am, John Doe is found dead, there are now 999 innocent inhabitants, 1 corpse and 1 murderer in Brownsville. Are you saying, that faced with this situation, you would imprison the entire population of Brownsville, based on the fact that you know there is a murder in their midst? In fact, since you clearly stipulated that you would rather see 1000 innocent punished than 1 guilty one go free then even if the punishment was ridiculously harsh you would still rather see it inflicted on 1000 men rather than have 1 go free. So let's just say the law in Brownsville calls for immediate executiong by burning of a murderer, are you suggesting that you would be fine with having the entire town punished in this way than the murderer go free? Moreover, if you were to take 1000 asylum seekers, could you even have anything approaching knowledge that there was even a single murderer in their midst? No I don't think you could, so even the Brownsville analogy is not as extreme as what you're advocating. You are saying that there might be a murderer in every 1000 asylum seekers and given this mere suspicion you are saying they should be incarcerated. This is more like imprisoning the population of Brownsville based on a suspicion that someone from Brownsville might have murdered somebody. Now, let's say YOU lived in Brownsville, would you be absolutely content to be imprisoned because you have a 1 in 1000 chance of being a murderer? How is this in any way just? Quite frankly if Australians were treated according to this logic, there would be massive public outcry over it.

What I am saying is this. Martin Bryant may very well have jaywalked in his time, but this has NO bearing whatsoever on his real crime. In the same way that is a person immigrates illegally, this is certainly a misdemenour, but does not in any way relate to their subsequent crimes if they commit any in any sense of justice of culpability.

Ok. So now you're advocating the policy that people might commit crimes in the future, and based on that they ought not be let in. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are there not criminals, born and bred in Australia who might commit a crime in the future? Now, surely, there's a risk that they might, and therefore, much like the immigrants who might commit crimes in the future, we should ensure they aren't allowed to live in this country. I myself have the capacity, right now to commit a crime. Why not lock me up? Because I haven't ACTUALLY broken any laws. You can't possibly say that they should be turned away from Australia based purely on the mere possibility that they might commit a crime in the future, in fact you can't turn them away on the basis of a distinct probability that they could commit a crime in the future. Now, maybe if they had committed a crime in the past, you could argue for turning them away, but you're saying that 'definitely' the reason for denying entry is the possibility of future crime, DESPITE the fact they have not ACTUALLY broken the law. Does this not strike you as unjust?

Well, I guess that no more tourists can be allowed into Australia. Tourists have committed crimes in this country in the past, they certainly have the capacity to do so now. There's a reasonable, in that it is not beyond the limits of reason, and is in fact quite plausible chance that a tourist could commit a crime against the persons or property of an Australian. Therefore, we ought not grant them entry. There is a reasonable chance of ANY human being in this country committing a crime against another, but a reasonable chance does not constitute an actual crime, in fact a very real threat of committing a crime does not constitute an actual crime does it. If I go about claiming that I wholly intend to rob a bank, purchase the weapons and equipment needed to do so, make it clear to all and sundry that I am going to rob a bank and moreover, I am going to rob the bank on the corner of Down and Up streets, they cannot arrest me until I actually commit a crime. If I walk up to the doors of the bank with an 12 gauge shotgun (lets assume that it's not an offense to carry a loaded weapon around in public, but that aside) they can't arrest me. Now you're saying that even if I can do all this, making it a clear probability that I am going to commit a crime, and not be arrested, it is still ok for people to be imprisoned based on the suspicion that theymight intend to commit a crime. In fact, not even this, just the existence of the possibility that they are capable and could in fact commit a crime is enough for you. What essentially divides me from them?

How much do we know about tourists who come into this country? Let's just say I'm a wealthy, ruthless Mafia boss. Am I going to have trouble getting a passport? No, am I going to have trouble getting into Australia? No. We let them in, despite the fact that we know nothing about them Does this not compromise the safety of citizens? Moreover, how is 'birthright' a meaningful quality whatsoever, being born in Australia is not an achievment of the mucus coated infant who results, yet you suggest that by virtue of their existence beginning within an arbitrary geographical construct actually means they have more of a right to be here than anyone else. Martin Bryant, Brendan Abbot, Chopper Read and Christopher Skase are all Australians by birthright are they not. They are also criminals are they not. Being born in Australia in no way reduced their criminality does it not? In fact being born in Australia does not in any way meaningfully make them more deserving of being a citizen of this country does it not? You are saying, that the purely legal distinction between an Australian citizen, and someone born in another country has any meaning whatsoever in an ethical sense? Does it in any way influence the injustice of what occurs? Consider this, for the sake of argument, there are ten people in Bolivia, all of them are going to be executed by an insane local military official, these ten people are 5 Australians, and 5 asylum seekers. Now the captain says to you: 'You can save 5', do you save the Australians because they are Australians? What if all 5 Australians were paedophiles? Would you still save them simply by virtue of the fact that they were Australian. Whatever you did, it would be an injustice for 5 people to die regardless of their nationality, place of birth or status as citizens of this or any other country. There is no actual, meaningful distinction between an asylum seeker and an Australian citizen.

From the British Deparment of Immigration website:

Clearly, while people's claims for asylum are being investigated they are assimilated into the community and are in fact encouraged to take an active role in their communities. This country is not being flooded with hordes of refugees, nor is it being destroyed by pursuing this policy.