I have no tolerance for dog-whistle politics or those it attracts.

Such a paradox is Niall. No tolerance for Rednecks, but also no tolerance for “slitty-eyed, slimy little Landcruiser-driving vietnamese pricks” who scratch his Camry.

Having a well founded fear of persecution is not sufficient to get refugee status, but it is certainly necessary. Do you really want to send those families straight back to a Sri Lankan concentration camp or worse?

Even if you want to be purely selfish about it, there is a much greater likelihood that the boat people will become successful citizens than other migrants simply because they have unambiguously demonstrated their desperation to do so. That has, for example, been the experience of Indochinese migration. As a US senator once said of Haitian boat people, “we need people who were so keen to get here that they built a boat out of milk cartons and sailed on it” (as once happened, BTW).

Niall says: In statistical terms, thats 0.19%. Hardly anything to be concerned about from the perspective of being over-run by radical islamist elements, or whatever the rationale du jour for the radical right happens to be at the moment. That would be the same radical 80% of the population I just mentioned. 1500-2000 is quite enough to be concerned about when the total refugee intake is around 6500, not from the point of view of beign swamped but from the point of view of running a fair system that does not reward and encourage cheats and criminals.

Theres little point in playing politics with one or the other. Whenever someone points out the dubious credentials of boat arrivals they are accused of playing politics. Those who argue for open doors are called compassionate. Who exactly is playing politics?

Australians are sympathetic to refugees but most of us just don’t think these people are. I would advocate doubling the refugee quota but placing the onus of proof on the applicant in assessment- which would require withdrawing from the convention.

“At the beginning of 2009, there were some 838,000 asylum-seekers of concern to the UN refugee agency. They are found around the globe. UNHCR advocates for governments to adopt fair and efficient procedures to determine if an individual asylum-seeker is a refugee, recognizing how difficult it is in many cases to document persecution.”

and thus far in 2009, Australia has taken to Xmas island……what? 1,500? 1,600? In statistical terms, that’s 0.19%. Hardly anything to be concerned about from the perspective of being over-run by radical islamist elements, or whatever the rationale du jour for the radical right happens to be at the moment.

I would agree with Jacques, that a change of ideology in this country has emboldened some into believing the doors have been flung wide open. I don’t believe that’s the case, however Labor has complicated the ongoing situation for itself politically, by abandoning the Howardian ethos, but rightly so in my view. Indefinite detention, abandonment of basic human rights and all of the cock-ups of the previous regime’s lack of proper oversight in the pursuit of the rabid redneck vote are not the Labor way, and ought never be considered to be the Australian way of addressing the ever increasing global refugee problem.

The problem itself is greater than one single nation’s immigration policy can handle, and requires a concerted approach by the global community in both restraining the trade in covert people smuggling and looking into the matter of asylum for persons fleeing oppression and bigotry much deeper than labelling them ‘illegal immigrants’, making a show of processing them as refugees, and then turning some away while allowing some to stay. Address the ‘push’ AND ‘pull’ factors. There’s little point in playing politics with one or the other.

The perfect example of this is North African migration into Europe. Illegal immigrants come ashore in Spain, France and Italy, then do everything they can to head for Britain. They will camp out in France for months or years, trying to jump on trains, trucks and ferries crossing to the UK.

If it was purely about “push”, those migrants would stay in their country of arrival. Spain, France and Italy are all modern, wealthy countries.

It’s solely down to the attractiveness of Britain as a destination. It’s seen as “easy” for illegal immigrants.

The sudden surge of refugees to Australia has a push element, but that they are choosing Australia is all about pull. I saw an interview with Afghanis living in Indonesia who quite bluntly said that since “President John Howard” was gone, Australia was open for business.

I should also take a moment to plug the LDP’s immigration policy: everyone pays, unless they are genuine refugees. If someone wishes to leave Afghanistan and has the thousands of dollars it costs to be smuggled, then they can afford to simply migrate outright. Simple, cost-effective, humane.