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..