Shadow Minister,

I saw the interview last night and the Ambassador looked for all money like he was following a script. That quote of his is pretty black and white. Life's rarely that straightforward.

The other thing to remember is that he is anything but an independent observer. He is a paid servant of the Sri Lankan Government and as such will do whatever is in the interests of his employer. So, his endorsement is not sufficient for me, I'm afraid.

Rob,

Your view of the situation seems to be filtered through your perceptions, and not to be shared by most others.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/tamils-economic-refugees-sri-lanka/story-e6frgczf-1225796724682
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26339073-29277,00.html

The war in Sri Lanka has ended, and while there is no doubt that the living conditions are not up to, this is not justification for asylum, and the oceanic viking would be perfectly within its rights in repatriating them.

Taking in economic refugees would then include hundreds of millions of the world's poorest as possible entrants.

Shadow Minister,

Going from the interview of the Ambassador last night and other reports I've read, the Government may be trying to do a deal with the Sri Lankan Government where we help them develop their own coastguard so they can stop the boats at source, while we up the number of Sri Lankans we take in via other migration programs.

If this comes to pass, we won't be taking one type of refugee, but another. The only thing that will be preserved is the principle of "we decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come", but for all intents and purposes leaving everything else the same (ie, the migration program will still take 300,000 or so a year and whatever domestic infrastruture pressures we have will be exacerbated, etc).

So, in this scenario, what's the net result of maintaining the strong on border protection message? Rob Sri Lankan Migrant A to pay Sri Lankan Migrant B?