Yabby: << the information about the free ipods was on a news broadcastone night, when one of the WA news crews were filming on Christmas Island. No, I did not tape it, I simply remember the story, which was broadcast a few months ago. >>

So it's just a an unverifiable and very likely untrue factoid you thought you'd throw into the debate in order to stir up some more fear and loathing of asylum seekers?

Yes indeed, you're truly a man of principle. I bet you love talkback radio.

Andrew
Thanks for your response. I accept you believe we have a right to determine who gets to stay in Australia. I see you have a three pronged solution to reversing the increasing flow of boat people.
1. solve the issues in the refugees homelands.
2. ensuring all refugees, where-ever in the world, are resettled within a reasonable period.
3. Australia just accept a few thousand illegal boat people each year as they won't constitute a great worry over the longer term.

Mate the first is totally unrealistic.
The second an impossible expectation for Australia to achieve alone. Bear in mind we already take more humanitarian refugees per capita than any other country in the world. We are unlikely to make much difference to refugee waiting times all by ourselves.
The third ...well at what point do you say enough ... one thousand, two thousand, three thousand, five thousand or 10 thousand per annum?

You appear to accept your three options won't prevent escalating numbers of boat people and your third option suggests you'll at some stage need to embrace a policy that does actually limit/prevents boat people arriving here?

Since Phillip's solution curtailled the arrival of boat people and you don't appear to be able to offer any workable alternative, am I being logical to suggest the difference between your position and Phillip's position is ... well ... numerical not philosophical/ethical?
:-)
Regards Keith

Andrew says: “Those that do not meet the criteria are not permitted to stay - including some of the Singhalese who arrived earlier this year who Horus falsely suggests were accepted as refugees”

This is what I said Andrew: “The boaties are not all Tamils. There are, or have been, among them Singhalese… under our namby-pamby refugee approach, both are equally capable of qualifying as “refugees”. Claiming discrimination from the other.”

Where does the –falsity–lie:
1) Your post attests that some of the boaties were Singhalese.
2) Your post also attests that –some—of those Singhalese were granted refugee status . And, those few who weren’t , I would suggest – are not GONE – but probably still in Indonesia preparing for a second, third or fourth attempt –with every prospect of eventually sneaking through.
3) And, as for our stance being namby-pamby, anyone who harbours delusions that our vetting processes are –thorough –need only listen to the latest Background Briefing , on Radio National (a station not known for its conservatism).The report recounts that there are sizable numbers of suspected war criminals among “refugees” who have been granted asylum here. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2715237.htm

Andrew,

You have stated that it does Australia no harm to accept a few thousand of these people each year.

Could you tell me the EXACT number at which you personally would say that is enough and that no more be allowed in?

Thanks.

It seems more questions are being raised about the 260 Tamils on board a boat berthed in Indonesia.

Did the boat leave Sri Lanka and sail to Indonesia or did the passengers fly to another place before embarking?

The crew have been taken into custody and are Indonesian.

If the people flew out of Sri Lanka their docs would be checked before leaving Columbo, so why do they now refuse to identify themselves?

Their accents suggest they may have come from Tamil Nadu, in India.

Could be more interesting revelations to come.

Look what happened to the original inhabitants of Australia when they made a mistake on who they allowed into the country.