Don't agree with the author on a lot of issues, but think he's spot on here.

The Israeli political leaders do not want to live here. Tamils who are a threat to our security do want to live here. Whatever the “…crimes against humanity and war crimes” the Israeli’s might be guilty of (and those ‘crimes’ could very well be in the minds only of those who hate Israel) they have no relevance to threats to Australia’s security.

It’s unbelievable that anyone could compare the two groups of people from the angle of who we allow into Australia on a permanent basis.

It’s also ludicrous that anyone could say that whatever ASIO thinks about threats to our security “means nothing”. The “Far Right” Liberal Party belief, of course, compounds Greg Barn’s inability to think along anything but ideological lines.

As for “The Australian” criticising Rudd’s failure to protect Australia’s borders, well, Rudd has failed to protect Australia’s borders! We had 60 boatloads of illegals last year, and we have had 4 or 5 already in the first two weeks of this year. Rudd deliberately dismantled our border protection, so ‘The Australian’ talks more truth and sense than Greg Barns does.

If Mr. Barns wishes to have his say about two particular Israelis who visited Australia or anything about Israel in general, fair enough. But to link the visit to which illegals Australia does or does not let in is complete nonsense, particularly when absolutely nothing is known about the ID – destroying illegals who are generally all allowed to stay, even though immigration has no way of knowing whether they are telling the truth or not.

< …let's make it clear that just because ASIO assesses someone as a security threat means nothing. >

I don’t think that’s fair comment Greg. Their assessment has certainly got to mean something. Even if it is far less than perfect, it has got to be a whole better than no assessment.

There might be a history of occasions on which they got it wrong, but how many times have they got it right? Probably vastly more.

Who’s going to undertake a better assessment than our national security intelligence organisation?

Clearly, your comparison between allowing possible Tamil rebels to live in Australia and allowing Israeli leaders with a checquered history to visit has got some major flaws.

Firstly; ‘live’ and ‘visit’ are two very different things.

Secondly, those leaders were here in good will. We can’t be so sure about the goodwill of the others.

Thirdly, would it be in Australia’s security interests to alienate Israeli leaders by banning them from visiting. I don’t think so.

Some questions for Leigh.

(1) Why do you think asylum-seekers are "illegals"? People smuggling (facilitating the unauthorised arrival of 5 or more people) is illegal, so the boats are illegal. But arriving on such a boat and claiming asylum under the Refugee Convention is perfectly legal. This may seem like an anomaly, and does add a hint of complexity to the situation, but it's hardly rocket science.

(2) In what way does the arrival of unarmed asylum seekers compromise Australia's border security? What risk do they pose? When was the last time a boatload got through our border security undetected and disappeared into the community?

(3) How are the four Tamils in question threatening our security? The government is now looking for somewhere else for them to go, and they are now under guard on Christmas Island. Have you seen the Detention Centre there? It makes Gulag Archipelago look like Disneyland. How do you think they could escape from there?

(4) Do you think all asylum seekers destroy their ID? What about those who never had ID in the first place, because they come from places where registration of births is irregular and inconsistent, or from places where applying for an ID document immediately puts you under suspicion and your life at risk?

(5) Do you really think asylum seekers are "generally all allowed to stay"? If so, what is the UNHCR's independent determination process for?

Given that the Sri Lankan civil war is now truly over and the LTTE has pretty much given up its hard to see how they could affect security.

ASIO isn't the smartest organisation. It has got these things wrong before.

>> Their assessment has certainly got to mean something.

no, their assessment is worth less than nothing. exactly because people think their assessment is worth something.