Stimulating thought from Mike Pope. Last night the ABC hosted the usual panel of pollies and journalists who launched into the pros and cons of Rudd and Tuckey and in general made cringing apologists for Australia to uphold decent humanitarian consideration for, in this case the Sri Lankans held in Indonesia. Australia, on a per capita basis has made reasonable effort to accomodate refugees. However, I agree Pope's view that given the geographical, historical and cultural closeness of Tamil Nadu India, if this current load of "boat people" are genuinely fleeing opression in northern Sri Lanka why on Earth did they choose to pay a lot of money to come very far to a very foreign place? Surely immediate relief and protection would be achieved in a 6 hours boat trip across the Palk Strait to Tamil Nadu?

The very point that emerges here is the silence of India. India is a strong democracy, a growing economy and well versed in dealing with humanitarian crises. Why is there not an overt offer to assist? Surely a joint UN India multinational effort could be arranged to mitigate the worst of the oppression suffered without the victims handing over their life savings to people smugglers and imposing what appears to be staged managed emotional blackmail on both the Indonesian and Australians.

Well said Rafex. I'm tired of this double standard that seems to exist. we are now continually told of how India and other comparable countries are developed countries with thriving economies, fast catching up to the 1st world. Indians often tell me how there country is just as good as Australia now. Yet why is there no call for them to accommodate these people. We are told we have a responsibilty to our local pacific neighbours, so why does'nt india have the same local responsibility. No matter what happens there is always a group of whinging refugee advocates that will blame Australia for everything.

Actually a lot of what the writer says is nonsense. For the Sri Lankan Tamils to go to Tamil Nadu they would need the permission of the INDIAN GOVERNMENT not the Tamil Nadu state government.

The writer is effectively suggesting that a state government can decide on a federal matter. Would the NSW state government be allowed to grant citizenship to refugees??

Mike Pope clearly has a shallow understanding of the situation in Sri Lanka.

Further, the Tamils in Tamil Nadu are the same as the Sri Lankan Tamils. Its the same race. Tamils have been in Sri Lanka and South India for 5000 years. Thats why the "Aryan" Sinhalese are so scared - they are scared that 80 million Tamils will begin to carve out a Tamil nation. Fear and insecurity drives racist violence.

Interesting article, Mr Pope. Pity about the dog-whistling title, but I assume that was an editorial 'enhancement'.

You raise some interesting and pertinent questions, but you avoid completely mentioning the appalling and well-reported conditions from which Sri Lankan Tamil refugees are fleeing. Further, you fail to mention that India is not a signatory to the UN Convention on refugees, while Australia is.

Indeed, India is already harbouring thousands of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees and is currently considering whether to grant them residency.

Your point about the likely expansion of refugee numbers due to climate change is a good one, but I can already hear the selfish bleating of the refugee-bashers who will want to label them "economic immigrants", "potential terrorists" or some other pejorative term. If people are hysterical about the Tamils, imagine how they'll sqwawk if boatloads of predominantly Muslim Bangladeshi climate change refugees appear on the horizon.

It seems to me that the claims of Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers are very likely to be legitimate under the terms of the UN Convention, but they are currently attracting the same kinds of fear and loathing from some Australians that every wave of refugees has since Vietnam.

Obviously, we can't take them all but we will have to take our share. We can't lock them all up and nor can we build a big fence around Australia to keep them out. We can, however, improve the processes by which we process asylum seekers and do far more to address the 'push' factors, certainly in the case of Sri Lankans Tamil asylum seekers.

And we can certainly stop demonising those who are far less fortunate than ourselves by showing some compassion and decency towards them.

It’s likely that immigration officials are being conned by economic cheats. The interrogation methods are kept secret, and it has been show in the past that Australian officials can’t tell the difference between Australian citizens, Australian residents and illegal immigrants. (The German/Australian resident et al)

The UN is much more efficient, and that is why these illegals dodge any chance to front up to a UN office as they pass through several countries which have the facilities on their way to Australia.

Despite the screeching of those who encourage illegal entry to Australia, we were second only to America (11,000 to 16,000) in the number of UN-processed refugees we accepted in 2008.

The only way to ensure that we are not getting self-interested country-shoppers is to turn illegal boats around, and stick to the method that was agree to.

As for the author’s concern about population explosion, Rudd was quoted this morning as saying that he really liked the idea of a ‘big’ Australia, and he made no apology for it. Once again we can see that the true enemies of Australia are our politicians. Both of the major parties are population maniacs.

Mad Dog Morgan,

I couldn’t post again in the last thread where you asked if I had ever been called a truly hateful person. The answer is yes. By you, a few days ago. Poor chap: you either have dementia or you hate so many people that you don’t remember what you said to whom

I'm just wondering who's the biggest terrorist - a Sri Lankan refugee or a Wilson Tuckey who is waiting to throw something at them from the pier. Seems like we've got more than our fair share of cultural "terrorists" in our midst already.

The distinction between asylum-seekers and economic refugees is a false dichotomy.

Australia is richer than most countries in the world, so most people coming here will be simultaneously improving their economic prospects. The fact that they are doing so, or are motivated by a desire to do so, doesn't mean that they are not refugees, and it doesn't mean they are.

If a person has well-founded fear of being persecuted in his home state owing to a "Convention reason", ie race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, then he is a refugee.

It may be said that the fact that the Sri Lankan Tamils chose to come here, instead of to any nearer country, shows that their fear is not genuine. That is a question of fact, which is to be determined in the process of determining refugee status. If a person's fear is not well-founded, then he is not a refugee; and if it is, and for a Convention reason, then his; simple as that.

However refugee status is, by law, determined on a case by case basis, not on a whole-of-group basis. It is not legitimate to make these abstract speculations about the factual circumstances of whole groups the basis for decisions on whether or not to return people to their home state.

Mike Pope is mis-directing his objection. Australia has undertaken the obligations of the Convention in good faith. If we don't want to accept refuges, the proper thing to do is to be honest, go back to the UN, take our name off the Convention, and stop falsely pretending to a concern for human rights, and to legal standards, that we are not in practice prepared to honour.

I have to agree with C J Morgan " we can't take all of them but we should take our fair share". We have approximately ( 20,000,00/6,000,000,000) .3% of the worlds population, so we have an obligation to take .3% of the worlds asylum seekers. We must do our fair share. Do we take this many? I haven't seen the figures. They are of benefit to the economy so taking any more than our fair share would deprive other countries of benefiting their countries.

ozzie, Sean Carmody of A Stubborn Mule's Perspective has done the numbers for us at:

http://www.stubbornmule.net/2009/10/asylum-seeker-league-tables/

When measured against population we are around the middle of the pack at no.20.

Against GDP, 24th, also pretty much middle-of-the-road.

What might be another interesting statistic would be the amount of fuss we make about it, proportionate to the numbers involved.

Economic of course. They say so themselves. They pay $15000 for crying out loud.

I say we help all of them, especially the poor ones who don't have that sort of money.

How? Send in the troops to remove their filthy governments, and smash their immoral, racist cultures through violence if neccessary.

Western countries need to start this war soon lest the whole immoral third world end up on our doorsteps - to exploit Medicare, Centrelink, etc.

Which they do as we see in statistics. I even saw an article in the Daily Telegraph about a year ago that stated that migrants rort benefits heaps more than whites.

As one who has witnessed the arrogant treatment of the Tamils by the Buddhists in Sri-Lanka, it could be said that there is little chance of any terrorists being among them.

As part of a study group from Curtin University back in the early 1980's, my wife and I taking a taxi to Jaffna experienced our Buddhist guide both punching and swearing at the Tamil taxi driver.

In fact, though the Jaffna Tamils who were formerly brought over by the Brits like slaves in the colonial days a later part of our Jaffna district visit showed them as both excellent and happy market gardeners.

In fact, it seems the Buddhists though formerly conquered by the Brits have taken on the British colonial superiority towards the Tamils whenever they have since crossed paths.

Though I guess it would be hard to be choosy about letting the Sri-Lankan Tamils into Australia ahead of say Afghans, maybe there could still be a chance?

Regards, BB, WA.

Though it sounds naive I wish in a way borders and countries were always open to those who need our help. I know this is highly unrealistic but it seems to me that this world belongs to all of us and there should not be any distinction which decides where you can or can not live.

I think it is obvious that Sri Lankan's would aspire to live in Australia. India is a beautiful country and yes, the economy is growing and expanding but we cannot ignore the vast and overwhelming poverty that exists in the country. I guess, Australia having a 'western' mentality, draws people in as here they see opportunities for a more prosperous life for themselves and their families..

I would say we have been duped by the Sri Lankans asylum seekers. I have changed my tune in the last few days after lots of reading. I cannot see how any Tamil cannot get a passport and arrive here then apply for protection. The only ones that cannot get a passport appear to be the terrorist group which is recognised by the UN as operating within Australia. India does not want these terrorists on their shores. No reason for eggshell hopping, maybe Mad Uncle Wilson had a point. But having a point is not about politics, language is. Perhaps we are all deemed too stupid to want to know the ins and outs and considered too childish to hear grown up words.. The LTTE send the money for people smuggling, actually they make money from it. All of us duped.

Going ahead with population growth, you need strong government and strong borders. People without these security measures are easily exploited and sent to the wolves. Always allow culturally compatible immigration. Forget divisive migration policy. It just an excuse for some people being marginalised..oh because they are a different culture, Bollocks, it is because people that are obviously another culture do not fit the business culture so have no other option than to cling to a cultural enclave like some sort of security blanket. Why not be honest to save them finding out the hard way.

Pericles,
The article you quote is interesting but very misleading and policially biased. It quotes that Australia ranks about average in its acceptance of asylum seekers per capita. But how can a ranking of 20th be average. A primary school child knows a country that places 20th in the world can't be average. A google search shows there are around 192 member countries of the UN. So this article is calling 20th out of 192 average. Obviously incorrect. What this article attempts to do is discredit Australia by not counting all countries. They only compare it to the top 44 countries which accept asylum seekers. If we want to be fair we include ALL countries. This false argument is kind of like calling someone average who finishes 4th in an olympic final.
Its very convenient to only compare Australia with just 44 other countries. What a biased article. I believe if you included ALL countries ( which any proper study would do) Australia would then be 20/192 or basically in the top 10% of asylum accepting countries.
We could alternatively quote a different stat and only count the top 20 countries. Then we could blame Australia for finishing last on the list.

As disgusting as the Sri Lankans treat the Tamils I dare say its not nearly as bad as the upper class Indians treat or ignore the untouchables. Of course this is not racism (as only whites can be racist). The problem with the untouchables is that they can't avoid even a leaky boat ride. And then we have the disgusting treatment by some blacks in South Africa who discriminate against the coloured (that's right they can't be racist either). We then have the Muslims in Iraq who won't tolerate Christians or anyone else for that matter. The list obviously goes on and on. The thousands waiting to escape from these terrible conditions and have legally applied for refugee status must be really impressed by these illegals who are prepared to risk the lives of their children in order to manipulate the lefties. As Wilson rightly points out the clayton's compassion of the left is actually leading to more death. Mr Rudd's disgusting politics is revealing hypocrisy beyond belief. The leftist media is pathetically inept simply because it is not Howard who they can vent their anger against. Mr Rudds me to policies have led to more illegals thinking they can beat the system. Just like the political apology which now sees the indigeneous in no better position and even worse in many places than before at least we (should I say he) can skite before the hapless UN of our new found compassion. What a load of ..

Bushbred <the Jaffna Tamils were formerly bought over by the Brits like slaves in the colonial days, now it seems the Buddhists have taken on the British colonial superiorty towards the Tamils>

Rather like another scenario we all know:- the Jews were bought over to Palestine by the Brits after world war 2. When the British pulled out the Arabs raced straight over and attacked the Jews in the 6 day war and had their ar….s kicked . That’s when they lost the Gazza strip that they now want back.

Does this mean that the Arabs had taken on some kind of colonial British attitude towards the Jews.

Note:(I am not saying that the British had a colonial attitude towards the Jews, I am just saying that if according to Bushbred’s theory:-
Brits bring Tamils into Sri Lanka – Sri Lankan buddhists now behave like British colonialist towards them
Brits bring Jews into Palestine –The Arabs in the 6day war attack on the Jews must have been acting with a Brit colonialist attitude towards them.

If the Tamils aren't bona fide refugees, then that will be determined by due process, not by all this conjecture, prejudice and half-truths.

If they fail to prove refugee status they will be sent back, as they should be.

If enough are returned it will discourage any other phoney attempts, but that can only happen after their situations are examined.

Same as before, same as always. "Problem" solved.

No amount of indignation and tough talk will change anything.

Sharkfin wrote (from some alternate universe)

"Rather like another scenario we all know:- the Jews were bought over to Palestine by the Brits after world war 2. When the British pulled out the Arabs raced straight over and attacked the Jews in the 6 day war and had their ar….s kicked . That’s when they lost the Gazza strip that they now want back."

Unquote

It was decided by many mainstream Jewish organisations in Europe in the 1880s and 1890s to establish a homeland in Palestine, then under Turkish rule. Jewish people moved to Palestine and started buying up whatever land was available.

When the Light Horse invaded the area in 1917 they found Jewish settlements everywhere.

When the Brits took over control over Palestine as part of a League of Nations Mandate they did everything that they could to prevent further Jewish immigration to the area, knowing what would happen next (ie conflict between the aspirations of the local population and the incoming population). I won't go into the history further, except to say that the Brits did not bring Jews to Palestine, and anyway, the Gaza strip prior to 1967 was under Egyptian contol. The Egyptians had a chance to get it back during the peace accords of the late 1970s / 1980s: "the Land for Peace deals. But Egypt didn't want it back.

Sharkfin, please read more history before commenting on it.

Right, and wrong, GIAO.

>>The article you quote is interesting but very misleading and policially biased<<

The only part that is misleading is the mannner in which I introduced it, in answer to ozzie's "Do we take this many? I haven't seen the figures"

Which of course was not the question that the article was addressing at all.

Because it clearly states that what was actually being measured,was:

"...how many applications for asylum Australia and other countries have received this year"

Applications, GIAO. Not acceptances. Applications.

Mea culpa.

So you see, there is no "political bias" at all in the numbers, just a straight factual reporting from UNHCR statistics.

Which would explain why there are so few countries on the list - you'd hardly expect a long queue of applicants for, say, Somalia. Would you?

The article also points out that actual acceptances differ...

"Cyprus is receiving a large number of applications, but it appears that far fewer are being allowed to stay,"

So we are still in the dark about where we stand on the humanitarian league table.

Sorry to mislead.

If the Global Reserve Banks,IMF ,World Bank,Bank of International Settlements had the power of money creation taken from them,then countries like Sri Lanka could create their own credit and would not bother crossing our shores.

These banking institutions are keeping developing countries in perpetual debt slavery from which they cannot scape.

Education and the power to create your own credit is the secret to prosperity.Hitler did it and made Germany the powerful country in Europe.

We will now be getting a whole series of controversies about what
to do the people on each boat.
Both politicians and it seems the government members seem to be
unaware that the people picked up by the Oceanic Viking are not
covered by the UN Refugee organisation treaty.
They were picked up as a result of a distress call and are covered by
the Safety Of Life At Sea Treaty. As they were in the Indonesian
search and rescue zone they are the responsibility of Indonesia no
matter what the nationality of the ship that picked them up.
From what the Australian Foreign Minister said their rescue was as
a result of a request by Indonesia as the Australian ship was the closest.

So all the song and dance about what Indonesia is to do with them is
non of our business.

RobP
Have a look at "the Australian" today, it turns out Tuckey was correct.

'Obviously, we can't take them all but we will have to take our share. We can't lock them all up and nor can we build a big fence around Australia to keep them out. We can, however, improve the processes by which we process asylum seekers and do far more to address the 'push' factors, certainly in the case of Sri Lankans Tamil asylum seekers.'

CJ when you add your preference for off-shore processing, this is exactly what the vast majority of Australians want. The only point of discussion should be annual humanitarian numbers (our share)and the method to deal with those who don't want to be processed off-shore.

I personally think the Pacific Solution and Temp Protection Visas for those arriving by boat is a far better proposition than the disgraceful pawning off of refugee people into the arms and tender mercies of the Indonesians or to have them floating around in a customs boat with the threat of violent ejection hanging over their heads.

I also personally think numbers of humanitarian immigrants should be as at present but an increase on that, to be determined on a basis of individual sponsership by individuals who guarantee financial and social cost and support, and with these people coming strictly from UN refugee camps.

Good to see you've adopted such a positive expression on the issue.