The Ruddock / Howard philosophy was soundly rejected by Australians at the last election and certainly, their policies and action on refugees and asylum seekers played a big part in their defeat. It was cruel, inhumane and devoid of any semblance of compassion.

Talking to my grand-daughter this morning ,I observed that Caucasians came to Australia under very similar circumstances; Convicts aside , they were economic refugees seeking a new start in a country that offered freedom from oppression, hunger and poverty or political persecution.

As the white colonizers usurped the property of black Australia, they decreed that future increases in the population should be of British stock, so without reference to or consultation with the ‘owners’ immigration laws reflected the growing seeds of xenophobia to the extent that orderly migration would express a preference for Europeans, many escaping the ravages and trauma of war.

Despite having participated in an illegal invasion in Iraq, and followed the US into Afghanistan, Ruddock refutes the ‘Push’ factor and obviously has no conception as to how the vanquished Tamils might be treated by the Sri Lankan Government which is alleged to have committed crimes against Humanity in their final defeat of the Tamils.

Rudd has inherited this push and although we all might oppose people smugglers, his Government is approaching the problem in a more humane way than the previous Government.
That is not to condone any action that might cause harm to people who are genuine refugees who have as much right to seek refuge or asylum as our predecessors had, notwithstanding the shameful fact that the black owners of this country are treated worse than the refugee

TRUTHNOW "Yes, the illegal immigration issue is gonna be Kevin Rudd's Waterloo - watch those poll numbers crash!!"

I hope so for all our sakes.

I for one dont trust,nor like, the weasly whining little creep. His body language is terrible and his articulation even worse.But then I wouldnt vote Labour in a fit at anytime.

Seen them up close for too long .. too many scumbags looking after themselves and their mates

bigmal,
I am so pleased that you will be voting Green this time around.
They are after all the only party with any integrity

Yes, it's all a bit back to the future from Ruddock isn't it?

Mind you, it's gratifying that this latest dog-whistling effort isn't getting all that much traction at OLO.

bigmal: FYI Sri Lankan Tamil refugees are not Muslims - and you've already answered your own question about why Muslim asylum seekers don't stay in the predominantly Muslim countries through which they transit on the way to Australia, i.e. they are not signatories to the UN Convention and therefore are not places where these unfortunate people have any hope of rebuilding secure lives.

I do not mean to accuse Mr Ruddock of dishonesty but I am having difficulty accounting for this statement.

"During the Howard administration the UN High Commissioner for Refugees identified more than 24million people as refugees. Its most recent reports suggest that number has fallen to little more than 11 million."

There was no year in the Howard adminstration in which the number of refugees was assessed by the UNHCR as 24 million. After 1996, the largest numbers were 12 million in 2000 and 2001. From 2002 to 2005 the numbers decreased but from 2006 the numbers increased again to 11.4 million in 2007. (Figures from http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a02afce6.html )

These statistics suggest that during the Howard administration when the numbers of refugees internationally increased the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia increased, and when the numbers of refugees internationally decreased the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia decreased.

And yet Ruddock quotes these figures (wrongly) to imply the opposite.

"Dog-whistle" this, dog-whistle that.

Broaden your vocabulary CJ. You're using the same old tired rhetoric a tad too often.

So any one who raises concerns about this issue is dog-whistling eh? Or perhaps it is anyone who expresses any viewpoint that you disagree with?

---
"The Rudd government maintains that the increased number of unauthorised boat arrivals is unrelated to its winding back of the Howard government's border security arrangements. It argues that softening border controls has not become a pull factor for illegal immigration to Australia. Rather, it points to increased push factors due to a global increase in displaced people and refugees. This argument is seriously flawed."

Absolutely it is, and critically so.

"It is clear that it is not the push factors that have changed. What has made the task of people-smugglers advertising their wares easier has been the unwinding of the measures implemented by the Howard government."

Indeed.

'Get tough or prepare for a flood'

Unfortunately, this is the reality of the situation we now face.

A timely article and a good overview, Philip Ruddock. Thankyou.