"Economic migrants, i.e. those migrants who migrate due to poverty, are not considered legitimate asylum seekers according to Australian policy."

Actually, it is according to international law that economic migrants are not legitimate asylum seekers, not simply Australian policy.

I'm not entirely sure what is being advocating here. Should Australia pretend everyone who is coming here for economic opportunities is an asylum seeker? Perhaps, but then we would really have to remove every single bit of welfare and social support we offer to 'asylum seekers'. People who arrive here genuinely traumatised by the circumstances they are fleeing will be left to their own devices.

Or should we create a new category of migration, of people who are fleeing nothing but want to come here to do the terrible jobs many Australians can't be bothered doing anymore. They would presumably have to be given few rights or protections, but would simply by their presence slowly erode the working conditions at the lower end of the workforce for everyone, just like in the US.

The immigration system here isn't perfect, but it's working about as well as we could hope for. If you have something to contribute to Australia and weren't born here, you will probably be welcomed. If you have no skills or money to offer - and weren't born here, that's unfortunate, but you are one of billions and are not really Australia's problem. If you make yourself Australia's problem, you'll end up in a detention centre or on a plane back to Colombo.

I'd really like to know what people who think the borders should be flung right open think will happen. It will be an absolute mess, and those we should really be helping will be lost in the chaos.

"Actually, it is according to international law that economic migrants are not legitimate asylum seekers, not simply Australian policy."

That's not correct.

International law defines a refugee as one with "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion."

One's economic status doesn't come into it, either as a positive or negative, and there's no source of international law that says it does.

Jardine K. Jardine - International law defines a refugee as one with "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion."

One's economic status doesn't come into it, either as a positive or negative, and there's no source of international law that says it does.

An economic migrant who isn't subject to "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion." would, by that definition, could **NOT** be considered legitimate. In any case, the 'sorting out' system proposed by Big Clive would quickly solve the dilemna that neither of the major political parties appear capable of resolving. No intending migrant / refugee / whatever who can afford to pay a people smuggler tens of thousands of dollars would have any trouble coughing up the $80 or whatever for a legitimate visa. Even after paying for the visa and a business class airline ticket to Australia, they would be well ahead relative to paying a conman for an extremely risky voyage in a highly suspect vessel. Note that the visa system has been tried and proven effective elsewhere, obviously too effective for non-legitimate 'refugees' & the parasites who prey on taxpayer funding.

I’m normally sympathetic to the cause of asylum seekers, but what this article describes are not refugees but opportunists looking for a better life. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that – I’m a migrant myself, and can sympathise with the motivation. But Australia has every right to set rules limiting economic migration to people expected to make a significant positive contribution to society – whether because of their assets, skills or capacity to pay for education and other services. It’s not “classism” to exclude people with no skills, education or assets from Australia; just pragmatic self- interest.

Nor do these people appear to intend making a long-term commitment to Australia. "Gehila ennam" implies they do not intend to stay here or become Australian citizens, but rather intend to return when they have accumulated enough conspicuous wealth to impress those left behind. There is no humanitarian, social or economic reason to welcome these Sinhalese migrants.

It is nothing to do with people smuggling, there is no people smuggling to Australia for the very simple reason it is a legal right to enter Australia with or without a visa and apply for refugee status.

It is now 13 years since our own courts said this"“ As has been observed in relation to other cases of this kind, the prisoners were not involved in a 'people-smuggling' exercise. There was nothing covert about either operation. They were transporting the non-citizens to Australia for presentation to Australian authorities. There was no attempt to hide from the authorities or to disguise what they had done”.

And still not one lazy bloviator or journo. bothers with facts.

And the Sri Lankans are sailing themselves so when is the smuggling bit happening?

There are at least 6 treaties and protocols we have ratified which allow for the free movement of all people across borders, we are one of the few in the world who has turned it into some major crime.

Rhian, don't be ridiculous. Everyone in Australia came here for a better life except the original convicts.

It is not a sin not wanting to die of starvation.

ONe of the problems these fisher people have can be found in the Maldives where they are slaughtering the traditional fishing base of the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka so there is nothing left to catch and they are dying.