I feel uncomfortable about the way we have treated the Shri Lankans , my reckoning is about the "Genuine Refugee" issue .
These People were hacked to shreds by a Massively Superior and Overwhelming Force not a Police Force but an Army an alarming number of People simply vanished , these people are not Border Hopping Opportunists they are "REAL" Refugees eg; Escape or Perish .

We need to temper our attitudes to fit the situation .

I can't see the Rudd gov't talking much about refugee policy voluntarily. Their policies, although not ideal, are always going to seem "softer" than the Coalition's, and would therefore probably be a net vote-loser for them. The debate on asylum seekers has become so comprehensively poisoned over the last decade, with asylum seekers deliberately criminalised and demonised, that most Australian voters have lost sight of the causes of their arrival, and regard them as at best a nuisance and at worst potential terrorists. This particular Howard legacy may take a very long time to turn around.

Rudd and co will want to steer the election campaign towards their handling of the economy and their green credentials, both of which will stack up relatively well in the electorate's eyes compared to the Coalition. Don't expect them to talk refugee politics unless they are forced to.

ShazBaz001 is right about the Sri Lankans being real refugees, but we should remember that it isn't up to us to make that judgment - there's an independent assessment process, which to date has found the vast majority are genuine and therefore entitled to our protection.

“…by employing language such as 'force' and 'deter' Tony Abbott is echoing Howard’s rhetoric.”

And a jolly good thing, too! Howard managed to stem the flow of illegals. Rudd just sits back and lets it all happen.

As one of a few countries silly enough to continue on with the outdated, totally inappropriate for the current situation, 1951 Convention, Australia takes more than its fair share per capita of offshore-processed asylum seekers. The quota for these people is lowered by every boatload of illegals. The goody two shoes don’t seem to realise this.

Describing the use of TPV’s and bipartisan mandatory detention as ‘harsh’ is quite ridiculous in regard to people turning up uninvited with the help of criminals. And, “unauthorised arrivals” are a burden.

There is not and should not be any “values debate surrounding refugee policy”. The policy is clear cut and bipartisan: a quota of UN-processed refugees from offshore centres. As for the nonsense about “stigmatisation of refugees as a “threat”, who is doing that? The ‘threat’ talked about is from people arriving unlawful via boats operated by the lawless. The threat, likely not a physical one, pertains to Australia’s sovereignty and its lawful right to control its own immigration and refugee policy.

And, let’s not have any of that crap about not being ‘allowed’ to ‘discriminate’ against people for the way they arrive, or the ludicrous belief that even genuine refugees have a right to chose where they wish to live.

Rudd has done more than” wind back some of the excesses of the Keating and Howard government’s legacy in refugee policy”; he has completely dropped all pretence of border protection and instigated an open border policy, including increasing accommodation on Christmas Island for his ‘guests’. And he certainly made a fool of himself over the “Indonesian Situation”. FORCED to negotiate with illegals, indeed! How pathetic!

This lad refers to “poorly informed attitudes” (of other people) while blithely expressing his own such attitudes here.

I think that Evan Wallace is quite correct that Abbott's Opposition will seek to gain political mileage out of refugee policy during the forthcoming Federal election campaign. After all, blowing that particular dog-whistle has proven very effective for the Libs over the past decade or so.

Expect to hear lots of the "We will decide..." jingoistic claptrap from the benighted Opposition, who really are only any good at slinging mud and exploiting the lowest common denominator of the electorate - a good example of which is found in Leigh's post above.

It will be ugly, and undoubtedly exacerbated by Rudd's predictable efforts to appear just as tough on hapless asylum seekers as the execrable Abbott and co.

What Leigh said .. and why do we need to feel so sorry for Sri Lankans, why not the people sitting in refugee camps for example, in the Balkans, for many years?

Why, because the Sri Lankans can afford to get here and motor around the Indian ocean.

Why don't the Sri Lankans just go to India, or Indonesia, or Burma?

Why here?

Is it because we've not made an ungodly mess of our own country by a civil war? These people were on the wrong side, it didn't stop them killing people, including Rajiv Ghandi. To the victors the spoils to the losers, well a new way of life, clearly they didn't lose everything if they can afford to get to Indonesia then buy a fishing boat and then attempt to get to the immigration zone.

Yes, uninvited arrivals are irritating partly because they know we will give them a hearing due to our overly loud and overly sensitive hand wringing moaning minority.

They arrive with a huge sense of entitlement blown out of proportion by people like this author.

I'd much rather we bring in people who are currently sitting in refugee camps all over the world, in atrocious conditions for many years.

They are probably more likely to want to settle and become Australians than to continue their old hatreds and breed generations of haters, like some who migrate here.

Here we have some idealistic kid, happily getting his education, & living off the fruits of someone else's efforts.

It appears he has plans to continue to do so, for a while, at least.

Have you ever noticed, that those who don't have to actually do do something to earn their living, & depend on the wealth created by others, are those most likely to want to give away even more of that wealth.

Evan, at least start to earn your own living, before you start pontificating on how the earnings of others should be spent.

Come on ShazBaz001, these people tried to take control of part of a country, which had accepted them as immigrants. They had migrated there to lead a better life. They mostly, did not integrate, but massed in one area, living their own culture. They wanted independance, in that area & tried to take it by force. Not the sort of immigrants we need.

Sounds a lot like where we are headed with our multicultural policies.