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.