There is a very simple reason that a majority of the public are very concerned about the arrival by boat of people who claim to be "refugees". many people see the boat people as defacto immigrants who are trying to circumvent our selective immigration process.
Australians have been and remain a most generous people but we do not take kindly to being taken for a ride by people who use the UN convention a s a flag of convenience, especially if those claimants have spent long periods of time in third countries.

Kevin Rudd, truly the light that failed. For a while there after the 2007 election it looked as though Labor was going to steer Australia back from being a uptight, inward looking, paranoid country to a more open, happier more generous place.

Sadly though, Labor ran out of puff pretty quickly. Rudd could have used the Liberal fear-monging about asylum seekers to show some leadership and given one of the great speeches of our time. In this speech, he could have said that he was elected by Australians to do something about the numbers that really matter. Numbers like the fact that there are in NSW alone 10,000 children in foster care, which is many more than people who are arriving seeking our help by boat a year.

He could have talked about the number of homeless in Australia again numbers far greater than the asylum seekers.

To address the inevitable howlers from blogs like the Bolt's who would wail that these people are stealing our quality of life, he could have pointed out the numbers of people coming by boat are very small and what great Australians, people who have come here by boat and seeking asylum over the years have made.

He could have talked about being a good world citizen and doing our part. He could have talked about the cost of detaining these people who are almost always found to be refugees for months in terms of money and reputation to us, and the huge cost in these people in mental health.

Instead he relapsed into the same old Howard mindset and is leading from behind. Rudd the dud indeed.

Well said, Bruce Haigh.

<< Why take such a path when events on the ground will inevitably prove the Australian government wrong, sooner rather than later? >>

Two words: Federal Election.

Such naked political cynicism by the Rudd government makes me ashamed to be Australian.

Anybody would think that Rudd had actually cracked down on illegals, as he promised he would. Instead, he has opened the gate to more illegals than ever.

The freezing of visa processing for Sri Lankan and Afghan illegals hasn’t fooled anyone. The boats are still coming, and visas will again be handed out willy nilly to anyone arriving illegally the moment the election is over.

It is just too much to expect people to believe all of these illegals face personal danger in their own countries; most are taking advantage of Rudd’s weakness to dodge normal immigration processes so that they can live in the lap of relative luxury at the expense of Australian taxpayers and Australians looking for houses to rent. Twenty years waiting time for public housing if you are Australian; move right in if you are an illegal who has put it over our dumb immigration officials.

As for these ‘poor Tamils’, give us a break! They will cause the same problems in Australia as they have caused in Sri Lanka. And, whoever said, as Haigh suggests, that “Evans, Smith and Rudd….want to stop the boats…” These three liars never intended to ‘stop the boats’. Politicians dismantling a scheme that that HAD stopped the boats, advertising that they were extending Christmas Island to take more illegals, and backing down every time they were bullied by non-Australian interests, never had any intention of stopping the illegal smuggling of people into Australia. It is probably another of their sneaky ways towards a ‘big Australia’.

And, if these ‘inevitable’ refugees in Afghanistan showed some backbone and took up arms against the Taliban – instead of leaving it to Australian and American troops who are being killed for them – they might be able to stay in their country and make it a better place, instead of slinking off to safety and leaving the majority to it.
........

.......And, if these ‘inevitable’ refugees in Afghanistan showed some backbone and took up arms against the Taliban – instead of leaving it to Australian and American troops who are being killed for them – they might be able to stay in their country and make it a better place, instead of slinking off to safety and leaving the majority to it.
…….
“When will it be that the taxpayer funded AFP acts to uphold human rights?” asks Bruce Haigh. What nonsense! Australian taxpayers have spent enough on illegals, whose so-called ‘rights’ are wide open to question. And, the “cowardly and bullying act(s” relate to the Rudd Government’s cowardly refusal to take action against illegal arrivals by sending them back, and the bullying of Australians by government and the loud-Left into thinking that objection to the present open border policy is ‘bad’, ‘inhumane’ and ‘racist’.

Contrary to what Haigh believes, any “turning in their graves” at Fromelles from our dead Diggers would be caused by the stupidity of opening up borders they died for, and the total lack of disregard for Australia and Australians displayed by the Rudd socialist government and the mad-Left.

"Illegals"?! Read the Refugees Convention. You have serious problems with honesty Leigh -- why would the Tamils cause the same 'problems' in Australia as they did in Sri Lanka? Would they fight for an independent Tamil state in Northern Queensland? I don't think so. There are so many Tamil doctors, lawyers, bankers, engineers etc in Australia. THey are a highly performed migrant group.

Lets face it, you don't like them because they aren't white. That makes you and your opinions irrelevant and false.

Sorry I just can't stand the sneering one-eyed tone of this guy.

"The fact that the AFP has been sent to Christmas Island to quell possible riots demonstrates the unfairness of the decision."
It also demonstrates that the detainees in question ended up rioting- even if the environment and guards would sincerely push anyone to resort to the same thing, personally I would not want the rioters to move next door to me, just to be sure, if that's okay with you Bruce.

"Asylum seekers are acutely aware of the justice of their claims. When will it be that the taxpayer funded AFP acts to uphold human rights?"
Well as the AFP's actual job (funded by taxpayers) is to enforce Australian security, (not enforce the rights of citizens of another country), your guess is as good as mine. Why would you even ask such a ridiculous question?

"Rudd has put himself offside with every fair minded Australian. He has given us an insight into the motivation behind his decision making; fear of personal failure, of losing office, is a strong driving force; morality and compassion are low priorities when pitted against Rudd’s ambition"
Because people that for whatever reason aren't too eager to give them residency are NOT fair-minded, and incapable of morality and compassion?

Anyway, Rudd's 'cowardice' is simply catering to what he THINKS voters want- which I assumed was the whole point in us being allowed to vote at all. I though that should have been obvious.

This kind of disingenuous writing is more fitting of your average bogan newspaper columnist. No it really IS.
In fact, it's pretty close to almost every botchy argument on refugees period- from both sides.

In fact, this is why absolutely nobody ever changes their stance on the issue- because most people of opposing stances can't make a convincing reason to do so, but would rather have a whinge about how lesser and weak the people of other 'side' is in their sanctimonious eyes.

In the interests of enlightening the obtuse, mendacious and/or ignorant, it's probably time to post the URL of the GetUp Fact Sheet on asylum seekers and refugees again, if only to circumvent the usual lies, hysteria and distortions that emanate from OLO's xenophobic hater contingent every time we discuss asylum seekers.

https://www.getup.org.au/files/campaigns/asylum_myths_factsheet.pdf

Bruce Haig is entitled to his occasionally odd views but I must take issue with his comments towards the end about Australian soldiers in France turning in their graves over the government's immigration policy. This is hopelessly wrong. Many of the Australian soliders buried in France would have supported the White Australia policy current in their time, and be horrifed to walk through Sydney now and see so many Asian faces. Their's was a very different time.
The White Australia policy has been buried for decades, and good riddance. But Haig would do well to remember that immigration is running at record levels, and probably at the limit of wjhat we can comfortably absorb. Illegial immigration in boats is a tiny fraction of the legal immigration but it is never a good idea to encourage it. People die in that trade.

That the situation for the Tamils in Sri Lanka has improved cannot be argued. That the situation is not perfect does not mean that the Tamils are not safe in their own country. While there may be cases of persecution, this is not the case for the average Tamil, and the default position to accept the Tamils as war refugees should be reviewed. The suspension of claims review is part of that process.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/beware-of-asylum-seekers-bearing-tales-of-woe/story-e6frg6zo-1225850659899

That Rudd is acutely aware of the polls is not news, and that the situation in changing in Sri Lanka gives him some lee way to try and relieve the pressure, is probably opportunistic.

However, the thought that politicians should show moral fortitude and go against the strongly held view of the majority of voters is more than a little naive. The last instance of this put the liberals in opposition.

That article in the Australian by Sergei DeSilva-Ranasinghe was written by a Sinhalese person. He is promoting a Sinhalese agenda. He may even have support from the Sri Lankan Government. But he wasn't honest enough to declare that he was a Sinhalese person and on the other side to the Tamil refugees. So his view can't be trusted.

Its a bit like getting a seminar on women's rights by a Sudanese Government Minister.

jj&cj, so what do you call people who arrive on SIEVs (Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel) ?

When Leigh or anyone else uses the term "illegals" it is instantly known what they are talking about, it has become slang for the boat people arriving in the Indian Ocean on our soil with the intention of seeking refuge status, uninvited.

You're arguing against the use of a term that has become Australian slang ..

get over it, you have no politically correct term for these people that is acceptable to the rest of Australia, who the government is now reacting to.

if the majority of Australians had no problem with these people, why is the government reacting this way and opening up Pearce?

CJ linking to getup - really, might as well link to Andrew Bolt. Just as credible.

Its outright lying to use the term illegals because they aren't illegal under the Convention. The liars cant hide behind the notions that its slang when everybody knows that they aren't illegal. But if Leigh hasn't figured out that these people are not illegal after this debate has been going on for over ten years then maybe he and the people like him aren't smart enough to be Australian and they should leave. I don't think of people like Leigh as Australians -- to me they are just transplanted Europeans a historical anomaly at best and not real citizens of Australia. An Australian should be smart enough to survive and at least the asylum seekers are intelligent enough to know that they aren't illegals. Smart people in and stupid people out. Don't let the door hit you on your way out grandad.

Ah jj, don't get your knickers in a knot over this - it's just typical Australian larrikan shorthand to name something, sometimes in dergogatory terms for convenience.

You seem to have a problem with "tolerence" and if someone disagrees with your opinion, they are liars, and deserving of insult, and should leave Australia?

Australia is a society that welcomes a range of views - Leigh is entitled to his view and his vernacular, right or wrong, this is an opinion site - you should apologise immediately.

"Smart people in and stupid people out" that's priceless, I can't stop laughing at it .. written by a clearly intolerent person who loses their biscuit over "illegals!" jeez, get a grip.

No way mate, Leigh doesn't deserve an apology. I'm ok with people disagreeing with me but I haven't got time for the haters and I won't be nice to them.

isn't it sad when the Australian Government gets shamed into acting according to the will of the people. Maybe we should have elections more often. It is obvious the Greens and others don't like democracy.

odo: << so what do you call people who arrive on SIEVs (Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel) ? >>

Asylum seekers.

<< You're arguing against the use of a term that has become Australian slang >>

Yes, just like terms like "coon", "boong", "slopehead" etc, it's a term that's used by the ignorant and hateful to vilify and discredit members of marginalised minority groups. Like those terms, tolerant, informed and reasonable people don't use it.

<< CJ linking to getup - really, might as well link to Andrew Bolt. Just as credible. >>

Hardly. The GetUp fact sheet links to many external references to support the information it presents. Bolt just defecates through his keyboard.

Here's the relevant rebuttal from the fact sheet to your odious and erroneous use of the pejorative term "illegal immigrants":

<< Myth 6 – Asylum seekers are "illegal immigrants"

Under the Refugee Convention, which Australia has signed, all people have the right to seek asylum in Australia.22 They may be found to be genuine refugees, and they may not – but seeking asylum is not illegal under Australian law or international law. The term "illegal immigrant", just like the term "queue jumper", is designed to make asylum seekers seem alien and unworthy of sympathy. >>

Some information with regards the term illegal immigrant:

"Australia's migration system is based on control over who is allowed to enter Australia through a visa system. Anyone who is not an Australian citizen must hold a valid visa to be legally in Australia.

The terminology for people who are neither Australian citizens nor the holders of valid visas has changed regularly. At various times, such people have been prohibited non-citizens, illegal immigrants and illegal aliens. Under the present legislation, the terminology used is unlawful non-citizen.

A person can become an unlawful non-citizen either by entering Australia without a visa or by remaining in Australia when they no longer possess a visa, either because it has expired or been cancelled."

http://www.beyderwellen.com/immigration-practice-areas/unlawful.htm#overview

So until they are granted asylum, they are unlawful non citizen, or in common parlance illegal immigrants. Notably the crew driving the ship have the boat confiscated and serve 5-10yrs in jail for their public service.

So jjplug, with your racist and bigoted diatribe perhaps you should take your own bit for Australia and emigrate.

The usual intolerant huffing and puffing from CJ

your odious and erroneous use of the pejorative term "illegal immigrants":"

and wrong as ever

I didn't use the term .. I described the use of it .. get a grip mate, don't read hatred and racism immediately into everything you read, ah what's the point you're so biased anyway.

Hey, BTW, Andrew Bolt is Australian as well, and entitled to his views, just like you are.

"defecates through his keyboard" .. well, you'd know!

jj,
You are wrong and you don't like the term illegals because you want to 'spin' and paint the people in a better light. You are the one being deceitful. SM is correct the current term in use by Immigration is 'Unlawful Entrant" and a dictionary will inform you that unlawful means illegal

It is illegal to enter this country without a visa and that is the reason we can detain these people. We cannot detain those persons that have a valid visa. Is that clear enough for you?

The illegals only become 'asylum seekers' when they apply for asylum.

Dispite your, and others, attempts to portray the illegals as poor victims, they are law breakers and know they are breaking the law.

They have to have papers to fly to Malaysia and then destroy their papers when they board the boats to come here. The know what they do is wrong. They also know that there are many in camps that are far more deserving of asylum than they are, but they ignore that for their own selfish reasons.

I think politeness is needed on this thread generally.

But at any rate, the asylum seekers are not "illegals" under the law. Colloquialism may be another matter entirely.

Dear Mr Haigh,
Allow me first to say I respect your diplomatic service in the countries you write about. You obviously must know something of the history of these countries.

However I do believe you judge Mr Rudd much too harshly. During the time of the Howard government, although the Howard government dealt with boat refugees far more severely, (at times quite inhumanely), than has the present government. Yet during the Howard years you were almost mute on the refugee problem. One must ask you why?

Mr Rudd has a problem with the boat refugees, not entirely of his own making. His particular political philosophy ( not forgetting his practising Christianity) is obviously viewed by these refugees and would be refugees, as sympathetic to their cause, and, as I suspect, is probably also your view, resulting in expectations well outside his power to grant.

Mr Rudd is facing an election with a political party led by a man, said to be a practising Christian, but in reality gives the public image of an extreme right wing pedagogue similarly the opposition immigration minister. Politicians who attack Mr Rudds party on almost all their policies, and more particularly his refugee policy, supported in no small measure by the national newspapers attempting to mold public opinion. It is no wonder that Mr Rudd is introducing significant parts of the previous governments refugee handling policies.

After all, isn't it better to be in power and thus able to be constructive? Than by losing power on a matter of very dubious principle?

@CJ Morgan: your odious and erroneous use of the pejorative term "illegal immigrants"

It might be odious and pejorative, but it ain't erroneous. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship insists they are here illegally: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters04/Press_Council_28_June.htm Apparently in order to start the process of legally being allowed to stay here, they need to commit an illegal act. Later on, we will expect them to acknowledge they are in country that holds the rule of law in the highest esteem before we grant them citizenship. Only someone with a PhD in bureaucracy could have thought that one up. Perhaps they are a fan of "Catch 22".

Hearing the situation in Sri Lanka was getting better wasn't much of a surprise. The war solved the underlying dispute in an ugly but effective fashion. It was obvious things would improve once it was over, although I was surprised to hear it took less than a year to become safe for everyone. That it magically became safe almost the same time Christmas Island overflowed stretched credibility just a little. What broke it completely was hearing Rudd claim with a straight face that Afghanistan was now stable. The very person claiming that sent more troops there last April, we have had more personal die there in recent times than any conflict in years, and they elected a corrupt and unpopular government via a rigged election.

It was clearly a poll driven flip flop, cocooned in soothing spin to thwart the backlash. It would be understandable if there had been a sudden change in circumstances, but it has been obvious for 6 months we would fill Christmas Island and public opinion would turn. So did the super bureaucrat Rudd prepare for this by building somewhere else? No. Did our Christian moral leader always intend to stand by his compassionate words uttered at election time? Obviously not.

It's not a good look, Mr Rudd.

If its legal advice from DIMIA its probably erroneous. These are the geniuses who deported an Australian citizen and locked a few others up (apparently there were more than just Cornelia but the others signed confidentiality agreements when their claims were settled).

But well said RStuart. Some witty and funny observations!

rstuart,
There is no doubt that Rudd is a hypocrite. There has not been a significant improvement un conditions in either country. he just knows that continuing to allow illegals to arrive by boat will affect his electoral chances, as people object to that. The previous government had the situation under control, with virtually no arrivals in later years. Rudd should not have encouraged the illegals to try the boat trip. Aside from the cost to us, it has resulted in the deaths of some 50 or so people since he relaxed the criteria and garanteed the illegals with permanant residency.

I also have little sympathy for the illegals as, at best, they are selfish opportunists. Many have money as revealed by former detention staff and they fly to Malayasia quite legally, before breaking our laws by entering without a visa. They could obtain a visa and fly here for a lot less than they pay smugglers. They do not do that because we can identify them and check them out and return them when rejected. That is why they try the illegal route and pay large ammounts to smugglers. 3 months holiday on barmy christmas island is quite bearable.No the illegals are shonks, invaders and gate crashers and should be recognised as such.

Applying for asylum is not illegal and some come,usually by air with valid visas, and do so. They are quickly assessed and if not deemed to be in need of asylum are returned to their own country.

One does not have to be a Rhodes scholar to worrk out why those that invade us by boat use the illegal method of entry.

I don't think the issue of the 'boat people' being asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, or whatever, is the real problem here.

The fact is that these people who travel here on obviously overcrowded unsuitable boats are putting themselves in danger by travelling here that way.

I wouldn't mind betting there are the same number of boat people who never made it here at all because the ships sank with all on board on the journey here.

We cannot condone this method of travel- especially for children- who are not given any choice.

These so called boat people should be made to apply for refugee status in closer countries to where they are fleeing from, just the same as all those poor people waiting in squalid refugee camps all over the world.
What about their human rights?

We need to stop encouraging the boat people coming here in such dangerous conditions. If we don't try harder to prevent such drownings that we never hear about, then we are no better than the people smugglers.

Instead of playing the usual game of the haters simply regurgitating mendacious factoids about asylum seekers, to be refuted by those of us humane types who are better informed and could be bothered, I have a better idea that goes straight to the major point of Bruce Haigh's article.

I don't think anybody can seriously disagree that the Rudd government's recent decision to stop processing claims for asylum from Afghans and Sri Lankans is primarily a tactic to win votes at the forthcoming election. However, I suspect strongly that the most vitriolic comments about asylum seekers in this forum come from people who wouldn't vote for Rudd under any circumstances, so I think it's not only a cowardly decision, but also largely wasted in electoral terms.

So come on, haters - is there any of you who will now vote for the Rudd government at the next election on the basis of this new inhumane policy? I strongly suspect that Leigh, Banjo, Shadow Minister, odo, runner, King Hazza et al wouldn't vote for the ALP under any circumstances and that this new shameful policy is therefore wasted on them and their cohorts.

Are there any swinging voters out there who will now vote for Rudd on the basis of this cynical and immoral approach?

I'll vote for any party, which finally has the testicles to do what
should have been done long ago, ie shut the trade down completely
and take all refugees from refugee camps, where we know that they
are genuine.

Our Govts, even though well meaning at the time, have created an
easily rortable system for bypassing normal immigration
requirements to gain permanent access to Australia. As with
all rortable things, from tax laws to any other law, people
will push the system to its limits. The cost of all this is
enormous and wasteful.

I suspect that some of the 'haters' are just trolling. Given that they are just reiterating misleading statements, which presumably the know to be false, they must be doing it to get a rise out of others. All fun and games I guess!

But anyway, Rudds policy is a dud because, as CJ notes, it won't attract people like Leigh etc to the ALP. That is, it won't shift the hater vote over to the ALP or consolidate Labor's base vote. But it will shift people away from the ALP towards the Greens. Those people who do vote Labor, but still dont like asylum seekers, will probably stick with Labor because they fear the Coalition's policies on industrial relations. Lets face it, most of the people who don't like asylum seekers are the same blue collar voters who left Labor in 1996 for the Coalition and who then drifted away again from the Coalition in 1998 to the One Nation Party. These guys came back to Labor in 2007 because they saw what the Libs IR policy was really like. They won't go back again for an electoral cycle or two.

But the type of people who vote Labor but love asylum seekers are middle or upper middle class. They haven't got anything to worry about under the Libs IR policy. So they won't worry about voting Greens or Democrat -- and if they're really ticked off they'll preference the Libs as a protest vote but they'll probably preference Labor before the Libs anyway.

But in one dud move Rudd has weakened his base vote.

David Jennings,
You may well be right in the assessment given in your last post. However, looking back through the posts, it was jjplug that set the ball rolling with his accusation that Leigh was dishonest in calling the the boat people 'Illegals'. It is people like jj and CJ that start conflict by calling others names, like 'haters', 'racist' or 'xenophobes' if one expresses a different point of view. I usually ignore CJ.

Usually I have trouble in deciding which of the major parties to put last as I do not want either to get the $2 for my vote. But I will put Labor last this time because Rudd is a hypocrite. He said before the last election he would turn the boats around and then did the opposite, in that he encouraged them to come. Now he is supposedly taking a hard line on the 'illegals' and, no doubt, do another 180 degree turn if re-elected. He cares not about the cost to us or the unfortunates who have lost their lives en route.

To me it is a matter of principle that the uninvited should not be allowed in, unless THEY prove they are genuine. We should not let them in simply because it is difficult to assess them properly. If we deny them permanant residency, they will stop coming.

jjplug,

I doubt that an ill-mannered redneck like you would apologise to anyone; but, perhaps you could point out the section of the 1951 Convention where it says that it is OK for even bona fide refugees to enter a country illegally? Come on, front up or stop talking crap! Nobody has been able to prove me wrong on illegals yet, and I doubt that you can.

And stop the rubbish about being "ok with people disagreeing with me". Your tone and language gives the lie to that claim. You clearly hate anyone who disagrees with you. If I,a fourth generation Australian am an not, in your redneck view, a proper Australian but an "just a transplanted European", are you telling me that you are a black fella. If you are, you black fellas immigrated here from somewhere else too. Melansia is one guess by the 'experts' because you didn't have written language to record anything.

And, with your warped view of what an Australian is, we have to assume that your wonderful illegal entrants and even bona fide regugees waiting patiently to be taken in will never be Australians either.

You seem to be a real stumble-bum whose mouth rules his brain.

I also note that the usual crackpots are talking about 'haters' again. Of course, the 'haters' are those of us who believe in law and order and a controlled immigration system which is good for Australia in certain situations which certainly do not exist at the present time.

At least we don't hate our country, like the usual crackpots who want to see more and more people come here illegally and legally to lower our standard of living, and turn Australia into a cesspool no better, eventually, than where these freeloaders come from.

All immigration should have ceased years ago; and the con trick of asylum-seeking by people under no personal danger in their own countries should have been knocked in the head before it started, along with that corrupt, unrepresentative body the United Nations which is using so called asylum-seekers to 'globalise' the poor, the useless and the dangerous.

Even Labor voters are now preferring the Opposition policy on illegals (NewsPoll), and the few clowns on OLO who think it's OK for this travesty of Rudd's to continue, should realise that most Australians do not post on OLO or anywhere else, but they do have opinions and will act at election time.

Illegals, after destroying their identity documents, tell the same two or three obviously rehearsed stories, and our incompetent, untrained immigration officials are too dumb to see through their lies. Now, the dummies are even being told not to take into custody any visa-overstayers, because there is not room to hold them!

Rudd should be charge with treachery against Australia; and the Coalition, with its huge immigration intake doesn't deserve office either.

Looks like I was right, if our resident haters are anything to go by. I'm a bit surprised that absolutely nobody seems to be attracted by Rudd's embrace of the dog-whistle.

Which brings us back to

<< Why take such a path when events on the ground will inevitably prove the Australian government wrong, sooner rather than later? >>

If the new callousness is an electoral dud, why take that path at all?

I see that CJ morgan has reverted to type. Unable to provide a cogent argument for his sappy sweet "humane" stance especially why, since the war in Sri Lanka has ended, the refugee requirements should not be reviewed. (I notice no one has suggested that the situation in Sri Lanka has not changed)

Instead he has reverted to name calling. Since his inglorious stuff up of using the term "dog whistlers" exposed his ignorance and tactics, he has now after a few weeks found a new term for name calling and that is "haters".

Other than being clearly against the rules of this forum, it is reminiscent of school yard taunts resorted to by the thick kids who lacked the IQ for anything more complicated than tying their shoes.

If you cannot provide any more logical argument than "Na ns ns ns" then I am sure there is a kiddies forum you can play in.

"All immigration should have ceased years ago"

Yep, in 1788 would've been about right from the looks of things! [I'm kidding]. Btw so glad I'm retiring soon and won't be paying tax to fund your superannuation!

Banjo, I take your point about the name-calling. Though I normally agree with the substance of CJ's remarks. Of course then Leigh turns up with a response to JJ which shows that they're both on the same level... sigh there will probably never be a civilised discussion on OLO.

Honestly, I think Rudd's policy is a waste. Just let them in, over 95% of them will be genuine refugees just like the Tampa mob were.

Leigh, its article 31 of the Refugee Convention 1951 - basically where a refugee's first entry into a country makes them nominally illegal the host country cannot impose any penalties upon them.
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/search?page=search&docid=3bf4ef474&query=illegal

Shadow,
How superior are you by following suit?
One might also note that your responses were somewhat short of logically realistic.
In context a 20 year internecine war is over so now there are no victims?

You really are totally imbued with your white middle class culture.

My father died 20 years after the war and still hated Japanese with a palpable underlying rage that was mostly controlled. He experienced 3 years on the Burma railway. Imagine if he had spent 2 decades of similar treatment ... Suddenly, the victor become a paragon of human rights, no ingrained lethal prejudices?

I dread the thought of if either an Japanese ex-prison guard moved into our street.

Its been how many years since the fall of apartheid in SA ...seen their murder rate? now imagine the Japanese had won.. that's similar to what the Tamils are dealing with.

Indeed Shadow, it was the same point I made at the beginning which seems to have unfortunately been overlooked.

But to answer CJ's question- I personally would never vote Labor because of how corrupt they are (I'm actually more inclined to vote Greens actually, despite their stance on refugees being more liberal than my own).
But I think what David Jennings said about the turn against Labor to the Liberals over refugees initially, and again to Labor over IR reinforces the possibility that it COULD win Labor votes as credible.

The Libs IR policy would surely hang over their heads for a while, and Labor's latest policy would definitely be an exciting enticement to those who would wish to prevent refugee arrivals (which is the ONLY thing the Liberals have going for them policy-wise in terms of popularity- better economics was more to Peter Costello's credit than the party's).

Of course, nobody will swing from Labor to Liberal over refugees if they hardened (losing votes to them is their biggest worry- at least for the moment)- unlike Liberal, who would be committing suicide by softening their stance.

Bruce Haigh made the following point about Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in his article:

<< For the Australian Government to declare that the security of Tamils in Sri Lanka is improving flies in the face of evidence coming out of the country. >>

Shadow Minister complains about being categorised as a hater. I'll stop describing him and his cohorts as haters when they stop posting hateful comments intended to vilify asylum seekers and refugees - like calling them "illegals", for example.

Around 90% of asylum seekers who arrive by boat are found to be bona fide refugees, and therefore not to be illegal immigrants. To obtusely continue to refer to all 'boat people' as 'illegals' therefore dishonestly vilifies the vast majority of them.

Why do the haters here want to vilify genuine refugees?

CJ,

As I have shown, the term illegals is not technically incorrect, it is also common parlance. While I understand that you would prefer people to use the politically correct terms, the use of illegals is no pretext for verbal abuse, and a clear breach of the terms of usage of this forum.

To this end I have recommended that your posts with this abuse are deleted. and I would suggest that others do too.

As the server is not taking recommendations the email

graham.young@onlineopinion.com.au is the avenue that should be used.

PS. If Bruce Haigh claims that the security of the Tamils is not improving, perhaps he or someone else could provide links to unbiased assessment on this issue, as all the information from the UN is that while there are still issues the situation is improving steadily.

And as I imagine that the Australian government does reserve the legal right, under Australia's own laws, to block entry to those who arrive without declaring their intent to do so, I imagine that 'Illegal' is arguably a valid label (albiet one I personally do not use) if Australian law does consider their method of arrival to be of breach of Australian laws- even if a different set of international laws state otherwise in regards to their specific motivation of what is normally a breach.
Of course, what then if they weren't, but the government changed the laws so that they then could?

Shadow Minister, I think you're being a tad precious. Why do you persist in vilifying genuine refugees by referring to them as "illegals"?

CJ,

Who's being precious now. I'm not vilifying the boat people, simply commenting on their legal status.

As a significant number (incl 6 from the Oceanic Viking and who now face indefinite detention) are not granted asylum for various reasons, their status until granted is "unlawful non citizens" indicating that they have entered the country (immigrated) in a fashion non compliant with Australian law (illegal)

The term cast no aspersions as to their character, but their advocates are trying to discourage the term for one more politically correct such as "special" is now used for disabled. This process also known as green washing only fools the intellectually "special"

I do however, notice that you have refrained from the childish name calling.

"Hater" is just as fair, accurate, and reasonable as "open borders traitor". It represents an attempt at "rednecking", raising allegations of racism to poison a debate or divert discussion from the issue at hand to racism. Among those of us who have problems with the refugee advocate agenda, I have rarely, if ever, seen anyone call for not taking any refugees or for discrimination among them on the basis of race. Personally, I have no problems with even an intake of 20,000 a year, which some refugee advocates have called for (although doubts can be raised about their sincerity).

Since we obviously cannot take in everyone claiming to be a refugee or even all genuine refugees, why do you care whether we take them from boats or from camps, when the latter is obviously much cheaper? The saved money can be spent on refugee settlement services or even on some of the unmet need in the existing population. Furthermore, taking refugees only from the camps would not involve luring people onto leaky boats, especially women, who may not be given a choice, and children, who certainly aren't. Your stance on this raises the suspicion that your real agenda is a very much higher, uncontrollable intake, regardless of the problems that it causes for the wider society.

It is true that numbers of boat arrivals are still small, but asylum claims started small in Europe as well. Asylum claims snowballed there during the 1980s, with increasing proportions of failed asylum seekers, who usually could not be sent back. From Home Office statistics, the UK, for example, had half a million asylum claims, not counting dependants who arrived later, between 1997 and 2004. Only 23% were found to be genuine. 14% got special leave to remain, sometimes for humanitarian reasons, but often because the home country would not or could not cooperate with deportation. Of the remaining 63% who were rejected and ordered to leave, only 24% were deported, with the other 76% staying on as illegal immigrants. See

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108

It's a very naive person who presumes illegals allowed to come to the mainland to collect their very own visas, courtesy of OpenDoor-Rudd, are 'genuine'.

Australian immigration officials have proved to be totally incompetent in the past - German resident locked up, Asian-Australian citizen locked up, can't stop them escaping Villawood etc.

Anyone who is a reasonable liar can be accepted as a refugee by Australian officials. And, now that they have been told not to detain illegal workers and visa overstayers because their is no room to lock them up (and further show up Comrade Rudd), they are probably saying, "What the heck. Let's let all the buggers in. It makes our job easier." Can't say I blame them with the cowardly, back-sliding of their employer, the Rudd Government.

However, anyone who thinks that people passing successfully through the thin veneer of 'border protection' is a genuine refugee is kidding himself.

another murder this morning of a Sudanese man in Perth. Can't be racially motivated because main suspects are Afghan. What a wonderful society we are creating with our misplaced compassion.

Shadow Minister: << I'm not vilifying the boat people, simply commenting on their legal status >>

That's a particularly disingenuous claim, even for you. Although you know that 90% of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are subsequently proven to be legitimate refugees, you persist in dishonestly portraying all 'boat people' as "illegals". Why would you do that, if not to vilify them?

Sorry mate, you belong firmly in the category of 'haters', along with most of the contributors in this thread. That's because you post misleading comments that are designed to portray genuine refugees in the worst possible light by associating them semantically with criminality. That is hate speech, and you provide pseudo-intellectual succour to the more obvious haters at OLO.

That's not being precious. Precious is whining about being characterised as a hater while doing everything you can to vilify refugees. Why is it OK for you to incorrectly call 90% of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat "illegals", and not OK for that hateful activity to qualify you as a hater?

*Although you know that 90% of asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are subsequently proven to be legitimate refugees *

That is the thing CJ, they are never proven to be such a thing
at all. As long as their story is consistant and they claim
to have feared for their life, we have to prove that they
are lying, which is pretty difficult to do, given that information
from the third world is hard to collect.

So how many are really genuine, nobody knows, the system is
wide open to rorting.

It seems that some on Christmas Island are complaining about this
and that, the time taken etc. Let me tell you, if I came from
the third world and had genuinely feared for my life, I would
regard the place as a holiday resort. Life is relative and
if you have really feared for your life, then you appreciate
how pleasant it is, not to fear for it any longer.

So your 90% figure is irrelative. Every boat would be different.

Take them from refugee camps and you know why they are there,
its cheaper, you are helping the truly needy, far more cost
effectively.

That was the amusing thing, when I heard on the radio, the
comments from the woman of the Tamil Association. She wasn't
even claiming that they were fearing for their lives, simply
stating that they would make good migrants. Well duh, so
would lots of people.

Every illegal who arrives on a boat takes the place of someone waiting to be brought to Australia under Australia’s agreement with the UN. Nobody has ever said, and probably never will say, that Australia will take its agreed 13,500 UN-processed refugees PLUS self-selecting illegals arriving by boat. How apologists for illegals can think this is fair is beyond me and, I believe, beyond the grasp of any fair-minded person.

Yabby: << Let me tell you, if I came from
the third world and had genuinely feared for my life, I would
regard the place as a holiday resort. >>

Sure Yabby - but you didn't, did you? In fact, you wouldn't have a clue about the actual experiences of asylum seekers. Have you ever been jailed - some people refer to them as 'holiday resorts' too, and on the basis of well-documented accounts the experience is much closer.

Leigh: << How apologists for illegals can think this is fair is beyond me and, I believe, beyond the grasp of any fair-minded person. >>

How would you know what a "fair-minded person" thinks? At least you're not including yourself as one, I see.

CJ Morgan,

The boat people have paid the human traffickers money to commit a criminal act, they are not just associated with criminality, they are directly involved. They are not refugees wandering away from a war zone across a border.

Of all the 400 000 000 people that can be classified as refugees, these refugees are in the the top 1% as to being cashed up. Of the 400 000 000 legitimate refugees desperately in need Australia can only take a tiny fraction.

A comparison could be made with people on the transplant list for a new liver. There strict protocols and waiting list to ensure that those most desperately in need and who have a reasonable chance of survival are at the top of the list. And every year many people die on the waiting list because of the drastic shortage.

If a liver patient bought a liver through a trafficker there would be a outcry not because he did not need it, but because he rorted the system. You and the other "pro traffickers" are supporting this illegal trade in humanity and diverting resources from those desperately in need to those less in need.

If I had to choose which population group better for Aus, having had a couple of Tamil colleagues, they are generally very hard working, and from an ex British normally with some English and a reasonable ability to integrate. Far better than for example the Sudanese whose culture is so different that they struggle.

Perhaps the best way to meet our refugee quota would be to simply auction off the places in the boats to the highest bidders and get the traffickers to control the flow for a cut. That way the pro traffickers will be happy, as the stay on Xmas island will be short, and we will get a better class of affluent "refugees"

I have never made any secret of the fact that I don't believe in bringing 'refugees' to Australia at all; I believe that asylum seeking is the biggest rort ever to be perpetrated on Australia by the United Nations and the Australian Left.

However, if Australian politicians don't have the guts to tell the UN where to put their outdated Refugee Convention of 1951, which has nothing to do with the current situation of country shopping and rorting, then it should at least be FAIR and try to select from people who have taken shelter in the first available country to be assessed; people who have NOT destroyed their indentification papers as illegals have ONLY after they have made at least one 'plane trip to Indonesia, where they destroy all indentification on the advice of the criminal they engage to get them to Australia. That criminal also bones them up on a good story - a downright lie - which guarantees that they are a dead cert to be accepted as 'genuine' in weak old Australia.

It seems, though, that fair is a word no longer recognised as being Australian by the Rudd Government or by the seditious Left,who hate Australia enough to encourage illegals and rorters of the system.

Vale Australia, land of the fair go. Vale the Australia fought for by a lot of old codgers who will march if they can this weekend.

"It seems, though, that fair is a word no longer recognised as being Australian by the Rudd Government or by the seditious Left,who hate Australia enough to encourage illegals and rorters of the system."

Are we taking a holiday from reasoned argument? Or is it, in the words of Aerosmith, a 'permanent vacation.'

We get, you don't like refugees. But its not sedition for the Left to be sympathetic to refugees.

"people who have NOT destroyed their indentification papers as illegals have ONLY after they have made at least one 'plane trip to Indonesia,"

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason why they've done this is because they are extremely frightened of being returned to their country of origins for fear of being tortured or murdered? What would you do if you were in that situation? Is it that hard to have empathy?

CJ lol at the fair-minded person crack -- very apt.
Shadow Minister, I agree with you that the Tamils seem to adapt very quickly. Most of them go from being refugees or migrants to being middle or upper middle class within a generation. Thats pretty impressive. And they are genuine refugees

*Have you ever been jailed - some people refer to them as 'holiday resorts' too,*

CJ, I was locked up for years in a boarding school, with conditions
not as good as Christmas Island. I was in the army, in barracks,
if I had left the place, I would have been charged with desertion.
Once again, in conditions not as good as Christmas Island.

The problem with jail, as ex jailbirds will tell you, is not
being locked up, its the other prisoners who are in there, who
are the real threat.

As SM points out, all we are doing with our present system, is
selecting for affluent "refugees". That is hardly humane policy.

* And they are genuine refugees*

So you claim David, yet huge numbers of Tamils live in Colombo
and other parts of Sri Lanka.

And lots of torture, murder, etc by government forces occurs in Colombo.

Leigh you don't know what race I am, and for all you know I could be dating your daughter ;-P

Unless, she's ugly.