The Tampa was within Australian territorial waters, and had failed to comply with the orders of the relevant authority (the Commonwealth) and was then boarded by representatives of the Commonwealth to enforce the orders of the Commonwealth.

Similar to the arrest of the Pong Soo off the NSW coast or the arrest of illegal fishing boats in the waters off Heard Island. These two were ships breaching Australian laws by refusing to comply with the orders of the legally constituted national authorities responsible for the waters in question.

Thus they were boarded, including the Tampa, all legal and above board despite your objections to the actual rights or wrongs of the situation.

The Tampa incident had no bearing on the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan which followed the September 11 attacks on the US.

They were refugees from Afghanistan yes, but their nationality had nothing whatsoever to do with the war in Iraq and almost no bearing on the conflict in Afghanistan and the Taliban forces resident there with the active support of the Afghan government..

(aside…why is people smuggling a vile trade?)

but denying them is supporting the genocide, the torture, the hardship, the dictator

(after all what is a dictator without his oppressed..just a dick, no?)

which would you prefer to support?

Strikes me that’s all people like Alex and the other unfortunates on this boat want - a better life, something different, a chance for freedom. Only in their case, there are “push” factors like religious and racial discrimination, and in some countries, worse.

Why does it surprise, astonish or offend us that people want a better life somewhere else than where they live now? It’s trendy if you’re off to New York or London to work for law or accounting firm, or to work in a pub, but if you just want a safe life for your children, you’re an illegal immigrant, an “economic refugee” which seems to be the worst the Liberal party can throw at someone.

We are privileging some movements over others. Got dual citizenship or a blue chip professional job? Come on board. Being persecuted? Bugger off.

Someone who is willing to risk all this for their children strikes me as the kind of have a go type this country has been energised by for many years. And not very different from the parents who pay thousands for their offspring to attend private schools.

“The most important parts of the refugee definition are:
Refugees have to be outside their country of origin;
The reason for their flight has to be a fear of persecution;
The fear of persecution has to be well-founded
The persecution has to result from one or more of the 5 grounds listed in the definition,
that is race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political
opinion;
They have to be unwilling or unable to seek the protection of their country.”

Considering the history and recent events in Sri Lanka these people are most likely to be refugees, it doesnt matter that they are middle class and well educated much the same as the people who are fleeing imprisonment, torture and possibly death in Iran after the failed pro-democracy protests earlier this year.

Also if you look at the history of why there is a refugee convention in the first place, it was in response to the failure of many countries around the world to absorb Jews who were fleeing the Nazis and who paid to board ships (with money earned from their businesses or middle class professions) which were then turned away by countries like Australia (I don’t know the specifics but you get the idea, and we’re still at it of course!)

OF course this doesn’t mean that it is fair on people waiting around in squalid refugee camps in Africa having also escaped unimaginable horror, but as they say the whole situation is unfair - so much conflict, so much injustice.

As a result of the unpredictable nature of global conflict and repression, and the fact that we are signatories to the UNHCR unlike Indonesia and Malaysia we do have to deal with people on a first come, first serve basis, so quit the spurious Howard era rhetoric.

Also you comments remind me of definitions of the “deserving poor” eg. pensioners vs. the “undeserving poor” eg. unemployed.

It is the people smugglers, whether their clients be true refugees or economic immigrants who make money out of this vile trade. One also has to ask why Australia is the destination of choice? The answer is quite simple. Once you get here, the returns are so high to the individuals concerned that they take the necessary risk to get here. True refugees could happily settle in any one of the countries they have travelled through to get here.

By relaxing the controls the government is encouraging more of this activity but it will not face up to the reality that relaxation of these controls is probably a significant cause of the influx. People smuggling by boat is but one channel of illegal immigration, and overstaying visas and shonky training colleges are much greater source of illegal migration into this country. Perhaps if the government cracked down on those alternative channels, it could provide more opportunity for genuine refugees to come to Australia. Unfortunately this would involve a policy decision which would upset the growing number of ethnic diasporas , especially as once illegal migrants get a foothold in this country it is difficult to get them out.

So the simple solution is to look good by relaxation of controls at home for domestic political consumption, and get the Indonesians do the dirty work for you. That way you can play the good guy at home and use the Indonesians as your police.

It would be much better if the government, if it wishes to control illegal immigration jointly to reinstate the harsh controls provided by the previous government and strictly enforce the rules in relation to illegal migration through overstaying of visas. Then as a consequence we could increase our intake of genuine refugees, identified through United Nations agencies and not by some self assessment process facilitated by people smugglers.

As an aside and more along the line of what Michael is saying - I didn’t find Brindha at all convincing. Maybe I’m a jaded, cold-hearted beast - still I’d be very happy to see their asylum being granted. Good to see this was picked up Sophie.

If Alex, Brindha and their 220 compatriots do manipulate the system to ensure that they get a refugee place, then 224 persecuted Africa refugees will have to wait in a squalid hell hole of a refugee camp somewhere in Africa for another year, as their places were taken by the well heeled and well spoken arrivals from Sri-Lanka.

Given reports that these people managed to pay $10-15,000 a place for a seat on that boat, had obtained a passport and visa to leave Sri Lanka by air and live for a period in Malaysia, the case for their claim of refugee status appears to be increasingly shaky, hence the emotive appeals to bypass the system and be accepted.

Ask yourself this, what makes them more deserving than a refugee from the Darfur Genocide? Is it the fact that they have money and speak English in media friendly soundbites?

Australia’s refugee intake (which has declined somewhat from the high of over 14,000 under Howard to just over 13,000 under Rudd) can be argued that it is too small, too large or just right.

What cannot be argued is that running a system that rewards people arriving by boat having paid thousands of dollars to do so, over true refugees from places such as Sudan, makes a mockery of any claims either side of politics may make of running a true refugee policy.