On the security issue, I'm inclined to agree: very few asylum seekers have been found to be terrorists. But some have, and one of them, of course, is the famous “Millennium Bomber“, Ahmed Ressam, who came here as an asylum claimant from Algeria. He didn't even bother to appear before the board. He eventually tried to blow up the Los Angeles airport.
Perception is the greater part of reality. If you talk to the people in the Department of Homeland Security in the United States, they'll say the reason they are building up the border is because they know that we let anyone in who comes in, and they don't get a security check. The security check starts after they're in, and it may take months for it to be carried out. So it's the perception of it. That's all I want to say on that.
On the other question, I agree that there should be levels of appeal. There are levels of review, though. You have leave to appeal to the Federal Court. Then you do get a humanitarian and compassionate review by the department, and there are very large numbers accepted. Then if you are ordered deported, you get a pre-removal risk assessment and an oral hearing at that, and if it's refused, then you can again seek leave to the Federal Court.
If you look at the removals, there are very few failed asylum seekers being removed--maybe 5,000 a year.