A READER asked in a letter on these pages on Friday why The Age ''crusades'' in support of asylum seekers. He said ''most of us'', referring presumably to Australians generally, wanted a reduction in migration and that refugees should simply be rejected. Irrespective of what the majority may or may not support, The Age has its views. We respectfully welcome the opportunity today to explain our position on asylum seekers, especially as this nation begins a prolonged and no doubt bitter election campaign.

We crusade for asylum seekers, and do so proudly, because we believe in liberty and justice. We believe that civilisation is enhanced by aiding the disadvantaged, not by demonising classes of people or ostracising individuals. We believe in equity, in giving people opportunities to build better lives, and in fostering the human spirit, not quashing it. And we believe democracy and this nation's economy is, and always will be, enriched by the extraordinary diversity of people who have come from all over the world to make Australia their home.

These are ideals that Australia, too, supports. They underpin the nation's signature on international conventions regarding refugees. They amount to some of the fundamental reasons why this nation has gone to war in past decades, in Europe and in Asia: to fight for liberty, to aid the oppressed and to seek peace. It is incumbent on us to deal fairly and compassionately with people who come to our shores seeking refuge, many thousands of whom have fled the very countries where Australian troops have served.

Over 159 years, The Age has supported successive waves of immigration. We have particularly urged governments to be responsive to the plight of asylum seekers. We did so in 1947, when the Chifley government agreed to accept 12,000 refugees a year from Europe, people displaced after years of battles and anxious to begin a new life. Thirteen years later, The Age hailed how the refugees and migrants had ''brought their skills and much of their culture to increase our national stature and broaden our horizons''. Many of their children went on to become some of the greatest leaders this country has seen - judges and state governors; titans of industry; innovators in science and engineering; political leaders as well as doctors, teachers and artists.

Today there are more than 7 million long-term refugees in official and unofficial camps around the world, waiting to be resettled. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates the average wait in these camps is 20 years, up from nine years in the early 1990s. These people have fled wars, persecution and famine. Some people have resorted to paying people smugglers to get them on a boat to Australia. They are no less deserving of care for having done so. For the Australian government to detain these people indefinitely - to freeze any processing of their applications for asylum, as it has done since August - is to shirk our responsibilities under international conventions. To be clear, we are not even trying to deal with applications speedily. The government has dumped some in detention facilities on Nauru or Manus Island, where they are being held as part of a ''message of deterrence'', as the Gillard government calls it, to others who might be tempted to follow.

About 9000 others are in some form of detention, including 56 who have received adverse assessments from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. These 56 are in genuine limbo. Once branded with an adverse assessment, they cannot be released into the community and they are unable to be relocated overseas. A former judge is reviewing the reasons for their detention, but her decision has no legal effect; their future can only be determined by the immigration minister. The problem with all this is that ASIO's assessment is based on a person's past conduct or past associations. Whether that person, having fled their home country, poses a risk outside it is really little more than a guess. Besides, there is always the prospect of someone changing his or her conduct; rehabilitation is a critical feature of our justice system generally. How can we, as Australians who treasure the ideals of democracy and justice, who celebrate the freedoms of speech and of political thought, stand by while people who came in search of those ideals are detained without end?

When racially charged riots erupted in Cronulla in 2005, The Age argued it was time for Australians to ''take a long, hard look at ourselves before irreparable damage was done to our reputation as a tolerant nation, one that had reaped the benefits of successive waves of immigration''. In the past week, however, the Coalition has sought to stir irrational fears all over again. It suggests Australians should be warned if asylum seekers are housed near them - as though there was something inherently unsavoury about asylum seekers. Coalition leader Tony Abbott on Friday tried to raise the spook factor further, saying people on bridging visas are ''disappearing'' into the community.

These comments represent a particularly base form of politics, a vilification of one class of people who have no voice and no ability to defend themselves. The Age abhors the despicable and highly profitable industry of people-trafficking which flourishes almost unchecked in the region and which landed up to 17,000 people by boat in Australia in 2012. The parasites who foster this trade must be tracked down and punished, and the industry stamped out. To do so requires unrelenting and high-level co-operation between Australia and its nearest neighbours, especially Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be a travesty, though, if political parties used the plight of asylum seekers to strike division among Australians for the sake of gaining an edge in the electorate. Such toxic games do not resolve the problems; they exacerbate them. They do not help speed the processing of asylum seekers, nor do they weaken the people smugglers. They merely lessen us all.