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.