Shadow Minister,

>>Similarily, while only about 40 boats have arrived in the 2 years of Labor, he neglects to mention that nearly all of them have arrived in the last few months.

Crispin Hull who decries the media distortion has no problem with distorting the facts himself.<<

The way I read Crispin Hull’s article was as an overview of the situation. My guess is that he wanted to deliberately steer away from the intensely politically partisan aspects of the debate and look at the overall trend with the view to soberly pointing out the glaring inconsistencies and unfairness of our migration policy. To focus on what has happened in the past 2 months is to deliberately embroil oneself in the politics. For your comment about Hull to be valid you need to know that he has a hidden political agenda. Do you?

>>RobP, of course its blackmail! They refuse to get off the frigging boat, unless its in Australia!<<

Yabby, it could also mean they’re not so stupid as to settle for a country like Indonesia that’s got plenty of its own problems as well as a high population. Just because they’re asylum seekers doesn’t mean they’re also plain dumb.

>>Take the case of "Alex".<<

Actually, I wouldn’t take the case of Alex. He’s definitely very articulate and politically savvy, but a pretty atypical asylum seeker I’d say. But that’s not to say he doesn’t very well articulate the plight of the other people on the boat.

*Yabby, it could also mean they’re not so stupid as to settle for a country like Indonesia that’s got plenty of its own problems as well as a high population. Just because they’re asylum seekers doesn’t mean they’re also plain dumb.*

So in that case, its ok to blackmail the Australian Govt and you see
no problem with that? If it was me who decided, I'd give them
24 hours to make up their minds, then start sailing for Sri Lanka.

A Govt which openly gives in to blackmail is hardly "doing the
right thing".

Otherwise all that this incident will do, is endanger the lives of
other people in boats, who might be genuinely sinking.

RobP: But that’s not to say he doesn’t very well articulate the plight of the other people on the boat.

You mean fear mongering? They may well believe it. History is littered with cases of people committing suicide because of propoganda induced fear. They fear what they have told to fear so badly they kill themselves sometimes. All I hear is fear mongering about Indonesia and Sri Lanka. I am starting to think the real xenophobes are those that think every corner of the earth not westernised is hell. Hmmm Yes, am quite sure now. Xenophobic.

TheMissus: "I am starting to think the real xenophobes are those that think every corner of the earth not westernised is hell."

It's all good then, because I don't think many (any?) such people exist. And we would not want any of those nasty xenophobes around, would we.

For me, one definition of hell would be living through a bloody, vicious civil war. One like Sri Lanka just had actually.

RStuart has resurrected the old tear jerker : “ A man is assessed ,rejected & repatriated, then killed ”
For the sake of brevity lets take the story as told, and assume there’s been nothing added or omitted to make it more potent -- which is showing far more leniency & trust than RStuart affords anyone else.

This rejectee-death-senario ( & others) is held as a damming indictment of those who advocate more stringent controls/processes.
The subtext being: by rejecting him we directly caused his death .

But consider the other side of the coin:
i) Had France not given --sanctuary --to the Ayatollah Khomeini , the history of Iran would likely have been very different
with many fewer deaths.

And recent examples :
ii) Abu Qatada, a Muslim cleric in England .Granted refugee status –has turned to aiding & abetting various terrorist causes –any of which is guilty of killing many innocent people.The UK govt is been hamstrung in its attempts to deport him till now, lest it endanger his human rights!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada
iii) The London bombers 1&2 a number of whom were recent immigrants( & even where native born we involved, it was largely under the influence of recent arrivals) .

And closer to home:
a) c Abdul Nacer Benbrika –ONE OF OUR FIRST ASYLUM SEEKERS! –and one of our first Jihadist clerics
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/arrested-a-man-apart-who-fought-to-stay-in-australia/2005/11/08/1131407637648.html
b) The majority of the Sydney terrorist five
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/16/australia.terror.conviction/index.html
c) The Sydney army base plotters
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/police-swoop-on-melbourne-homes-after-somali-islamists-terror-plot-exposed/story-0-1225757649928

The above passed our screenings .And the entry into the country of all of the above had, or could have had, a serious cost in human lives

I’m not suggesting that all bad comes from outside, rather that, if it is valid to argue that stringent policies in keeping someone out led to their death, it is equally valid to argue that less stringent polices which let the above in, led to deaths too – and probably many more deaths.

That RStuart tries to milk the sympathy card should come as no surprise , since he apparently has no other cards to play.

Even the Sri Lankan ambassador to the UN says:

"They are economic refugees using emotional blackmail to find a better place to live."

Walks like a duck.