Talk:Immigration detention in Australia

message: Hmm.  Seems someone has suggested a merge without discussing why.  At a glance, I would support merging Mandatory detention, although there's not much to merge.  Pacific Solution seems to be worth a page of its own, plus a paragraph on this page.  Regards, Ben Aveling 00:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly oppose merging this article with Pacific Solution. I'm not so sure about Mandatory detention, though. Is the term used anywhere else? - Borofkin 02:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After 2 opposes, and no reply since for almost 2 months, I'm removing the merge tag. (JROBBO 13:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merges 

message: I tried to incorporate the changes of special:contributions/130.194.13.103, mostly the changes to the introduction, into the article. The changes seemed to add good information, but some were biased against the practice of mandatory detention. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporation of new text into article 

message: "Australia's longest serving detainee Peter Qasim was detained for over 7 years without charge or trial before being released in 2005"
Immigration detention is not a criminal process so there isn't any cause for being "charged" or "trial" as would happen in a criminal offence ie. robbery. It's just detention. The statement is more emotive than factual. - 4 April 2006 09:45 (AET)
::Agreed.  This needed to be removed, as it added nothing to the article except a touch of political spin.  I have now deleted it.Sporkboy (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify 

message: I think this article needs a review.  For example, certain terms are being used not merely for descriptive purposes but for their emotional effect.  E.g. "...pursuant to which all persons entering or remaining in the country without a valid visa including children are compulsorily detained and may be subject to deportation."  Surely it's obvious that "all persons" includes "children" so it serves no obvious benefit to add them separately to this sentence.
GuyIncognito 10:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Australia is unusual in its detention of children, in Sweden the maximum time a child is kept in custody is six days. The fact that children are detained for long periods is very significant against various human rights conventions. Explict mention of this fact is reasonable.--Wm 07:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Mandatory detention in Australia refers to the Australian federal government's policy and system of mandatory detention, under which all persons entering or remaining in the country without a valid visa are compulsorily detained[s 189 Migration Act 1958].
all remaining without a visa are detained? Firstly, this is inconsistent with other parts of the intro article that state that a bridging visa is normally provided, and secondly is it actually correct? I suspect it isn't. are all those overstaying British backpackers locked up in Villawood? I doubt it.
I also removed the reference to deportation in that first sentence - deportation is not really the issue here. A potential for deportation has always been the case, and not just in Australia but most countries.
Also, who gave the name Pacific Solution. Something tells me it is not the policy's official name. If it is not the name then the term so-called (or equivalent) should precede the phrase, and the Pacific Solution article should be updated.
I also removed unneccessary use of the term pursuant. That belongs more in a legal text book or contract rather than a general-use encyclopedia. No value added by using it.
And do we really need to have the name of the contractor mentioned in the intro of what is a reasonably lengthy and broad article? --Merbabu 23:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The article title should be changed to "Mandatory detention of refugees in Australia" to clarify the target population of the policy. Nicktropical 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing else that "mandatory detention" refers to in Australia, so there's no need to clarify the title. I've heard it mentioned in the media as just "mandatory detention". Graham87 02:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A refugee is someone who has fled a situation which they find intolerable. A person does not need to receive offical recognition to be a refugee any more than a person needs a bith certificate to be born.Harrypotter 08:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Probably best to move it from the introduction text to the history section below. 123.2.12.65 (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small update needed re: end of pacific solution 

message: This week, SBS published a timeline for Mandatory Detention in Australia. It should serve as a template of events to be included in this article. --Lester 05:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SBS Timeline of Mandatory Detention 

message: Reading Chris Evans' speech, and the news releases, it is clear to me that mandatory detention has not ended. (In fact it includes the point "Mandatory detention is an essential component of strong border control") As far as I can tell, the only thing real change is that detention has to be justified every 3 months by the Department of Immigration. I think that means that "boat people" can expect to be out after 3 months, but perhaps it's all spin and they'll still be detained indefinitely. Is that a fair assessment? Peter Ballard (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Point NUMBER ONE in that speech is that Mandatory Detention is "ESSENTIAL". In other words, the ALP fully support the concept and practice of mandatory detention (they introduced it, after all). There is not much to stop someone being detained indefinitely, although by my reading of the speech, a duration must be specified initially, and 'reviewed' (i.e. extended) every three months. The only real change is that children will no longer be detained in IDCs. --Surturz (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not argue that those opinions are held by Chris Evans and the ALP, and that such detentions continue. --Lester 05:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandatory Detention has not ended 

message: This article is very anti-Liberal. It must be changed to ensure neutrality. Nathan.tang (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: This article is pretty scrappy. For example, the Rudd section seems to deal with future wishes from early on in the Rudd government - understandable, of course - rather than what actually occurred, which didn't quite match the dream.
That use of "incarcerated" is very POV. "Housed" seems better. --Pete (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrappy 

message: The photos of the detainees were taken by myself using a zoom lens and are not a breach of copyright, photos of the very same people were also in the news-paper and on the television so there would not be any breach of privacy. ***Adam*** (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Along with changing terminology from 'unauthorised' to 'unlawful', some of the immi.gov.au links have changed for stats: . Many of the fact sheets are under review, too. --Surturz (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New immi.gov.au link 

message: NPR reported in its article "'I Felt Like I Was A Slave'; Report Slams Conditions For Refugees On Nauru" that "Asylum-seekers are held by Australian authorities on Nauru indefinitely for attempting to get to Australia by boat. Even if authorities determine they qualify for refugee status, under Australia's strict migration laws people held on Nauru are not allowed to settle in Australia." How strange coming from a country whose ancestors were exiled criminals from Great Britain. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd laws 

message: It was only after I had finished doing a tidy-up of the Timeline section in the Asylum in Australia article that I looked properly at the History section in this article and saw the huge amount of overlap. I don't have time to spend on this now but am just raising it here as I think it could do with some discussion as to how best to tackle the overlap and duplication in order to keep relevant material in one place and avert further duplication and/or holes in either narrative. It would be best to combine the info and keep the bulk of it in one place, with appropriate direction from other articles. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlapping content