About 4 threads active on subjects near to this, 20 maybe more in our recent past why?
I think the author will not be seen here again, and that we will not truly address the subject.
We will dance around blaming our governments past and present, but ignore the ones they run from.
We in other threads talk about sustainability and an over crowded earth but still think we can take more people, indeed should.
If others over populate, can we take their over flow?
Is it time to limit world population?
Is that first step in controlling migration?

Your jumping the gun.
Australia isn’t even a signatory to a human rights bill, and has no human rights bill interests. ,
Refuses to sign anything remotely resembling this bill.
By the way china the USSR the two biggest abusers of human rights are signatories.
Australia is going, head in the sand, much like its English predecessors.

The UN agreement on refugees only covers them for the first country they come to, not to travel halfway around the world to infest some country that is at odds with their culture.

These people are economic refugees not asylum seekers. They should be stopped at all costs. Australia needs to concentrate on supporting the Aboriginal/elderly/mental health/ etc at home before it wastes time & money on these people.

Charity begins at home, let's start with Australia first.

Jayb, you say:

<< These people are economic refugees not asylum seekers. They should be stopped at all costs. >>

Which refugees are you talking about?

If you are referring to the asylum seekers on the Oceanic Viking, I am of the understanding that no one (not Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia or Sri Lanka) have processed or assessed their status yet.

I am not saying you are wrong (you may well be right) however, the only primary source that I have heard refer to them as "economic refugees" was Sri Lanka's High Commissioner to Australia. He just appears to wiggle too much for me to be convinced of his claims.

Until they have been properly assessed, I fail to see how anyone (even officials at the coal face) can say one thing or another. I'm interested, do you know something that they don't know?

Definition of an assylum seeker? One who's life is in danger from their own Government.

Definition of an Economic Refugee? One who thinks they can make more money in another country than they can in their own. Not a refugee.

UN Definition of a Refugee. Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:

"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."[1]
Article 2
General Obligations. Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, whichrequire in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

That's fine JayB, so how do YOU know (when the assessment process has not yet been completed) that those on the Oceanic Viking are "economic refugees"?

Please, if you can, answer the question. If you can't, a simple "I don't know" will suffice.

Maybe I have not been clear. Let me put it this way -

How do YOU know if those on that ship, if returned to their country of origin (Sri Lanka?), will not be in danger from their own Government (assuming you do know about the civil war)? Thanks.