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!