The difference was that there seems to have been a somewhat orderly program of resettlement from Vietnam after the war there. I wasn't around the time, but I'm only going off the link below
See the numbers as reported by the Parliament House library archives. Nary a blip back in those days. Quite clearly we can see exactly what happened in 2001 (Tampa) and 2009 (Rudd's compassion). The numbers were getting out of control, and at the end of it, were making up a significant proportion of the migrant intake* (about 10-15%). For those who do advocate an open borders approach, how many would you take? 100,000 a year? 1 million a year? Where would they go? In Sydney? Where there is already a shortage of housing, lack of infrastructure and lack of community services to deal with the influx? Or any other parts of the country, which is even less equipped in those regards... The processing costs were blowing out by billions (and yes we had to process them, Afghans turning up without documents and who's to know they weren't Taliban).
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1314/BoatArrivals
Not normally one to agree with the Tories but hey, the boats have stopped coming, there are no more children entering detention, and the ones who are in there are progressively being taken out, and most importantly people have stopped dying at sea.
You can question the methods, but what would you do differently to get the same results? I can't come with anything better that would be as effective and for that, I give the current government credit for what they've done (and may the lord strike me down for praising the Libs)
* For what it's worth, I'm one who believes the migrant intake needs to be scaled back. Simplistic I know, but it's no use bringing in hundreds of thousands of people when kids here today can't get jobs and youth unemployment is so high. There was a time when the economy needed a significant increase in migrants, but that time has passed for now. It may well come around again in future, and when it does we can open the tap again.
Marty - I think you're missing the most important part of this issue:
Australia's policies do not affect the number of asylum seekers trying to reach our shores. It can't. The reasons people flee and leave have nothing to do with x-policy, or y-politician and all to do with 'I can't live here'. Australia really only has to appear to be better to live in than Afghanistan, a refugee camp, Somalia, illegally in Malaysia, etc for people to try and make it here.
For people who get here via boat there's no reason NOT to welcome them. They represent a tiny fraction of new Australians each year (<1% usually, sometimes between 1-2%). Sure, there have been exceptions to this - but this is largely due to things Australia contributed to (War on Terror, yeah, we'll fuck up your home, but don't think we'll accept you've got a legitimate reason to leave!), or was incredibly aware of (Sri Lankan civil war).
Compared to people who overstay their student visas, immigrants from NZ/UK and other legal immigrants, asylum seekers really are NOT worth spending umpteen billions punishing by putting them in a detention center (NZ immigrants aren't counted in most statistics, as they do not have to apply for a visa, etc). Simply due to geography people are always going to struggle to come here 'illegally' - we'll never face a faceless and endless mass of people unless Indonesia is swallowed by the sea (though I guess when things turn to shit in Polynesia and Melanesia we'll either have a choice to help or a choice to get 'tough').
Furthermore - where would I put them? In rural areas where there's a modicum of unskilled labour - areas like Mildura, Albury/Wodonga, Shepparton have done well with the Asylum Seeker re-settlement scheme - families are able to participate in society, even with limited English, and become a visible and connected part of the community.
You're conflating a whole set of issues here (numbers, population in major cities, processing, etc). Honestly, if you can't admit that the current way that Australia handles asylum seekers is:
A) Reprehensibly inhumane
B) Grossly inefficient
C) Irresponsibly costly
Then we simply can't talk about it - there are
no positives to the Coalition's current policies (and there have been starkly very few positives since 9/11). The positives you list are either impossible to know (deaths at sea) or just bizarre (yeah, it is good fewer kids are in detention but that's like saying it's great that Pol Pot was only in Cambodia - pretty far fetched silver lining, IMO).
I know that there are multiple ways of treating people more humanely, more efficiently and with less cost - and these aren't arcane or illogical, but I think we should be aiming for DIFFERENT results, not the same ones.