I personally would take the whole load of those bright articulate “Alex” types from Sri Lanka — - English speaking, cricket playing — and there might be a decent spinner amongst them. I am sure they would put our indolent lower orders to shame in the hard work stakes in a short time if they didn’t find our welfare system more attractive. And I am impressed that any Tamil Sri Lankan can raise $10,000 for a smuggler boat ride to Australia. Just the sort of initiative needed in a new Australian.

There is just a small issue of the other 200 million refugees who don’t have a razoo, rotting in UN camps in first refuge countries. Given that our refugee intake is finite, the $10,000 Tamil boat rider is likely taking the place of one of those poor losers who can’t rake up the cash to make the voyage.

So the morality of the Rundle position is that Guy would accept those who help themselves, and his public policy would turn a blind eye to the inequity of the desperate with cash getting into Australia while the desperate without cash meekly wait years in the rotten UN queue.

None of which in fact has any relevance whatsoever to the current debate — which is as you said “a position far in advance of the one we were in in 2001, which is where many of the pundits are still at.”

The argument depends either on the boat people being a swarm of large numbers that will congest our space and force us to adjust our lifestyle, or dangerous people representing a threat to our safety. As I mention above, the numbers are piddling compared to all the other immigration numbers we’re dealing with, both legal and illegal.

And neither side in parliament is accusing the boat people of being terrorists this time. (Not counting the former Minister for Stray Human Disposal, who causes even his own people to cross themselves and suddenly remember they have an engagement). For those who missed it, we did that one to death in 2001.

There’s one more “right”: “We will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come.” (Did I get that right? It’s a national motto, I know it by heart even without wanting to.) As you say, states have imperatives (collective requirements to survive and prosper) and obligations (to protect the rights of its citizens, visitors, and in the UN age, other populations that it undertakes to assist); not rights.

But there’s a psychological wish for the gatekeepers to retain a sense of control. It just … feels good. Ask the marketing folks at Apple — you give the customers a choice of colour, and they’ll feel much more comfortable parting with their money. Australians might have no clue how to choose new club members — they might never have contemplated the difference between refugees who spend years starving in a refugee camp waiting for someone to do something, refugees who bribe camp officials to arrange a UNHCR visit, and refugees who take a chance on the dangerous midnight express — but they like to be able to exercise that choice anyway. It’s the sense of control they crave, in what’s seen as an out-of-control world.

All this assumes that you’re right and some sort of philosophical debate is going on within the Labor government. I haven’t yet disposed of my other theory above (I mean, I’d hoped to test it on better minds than mine, but I’m getting the sort of silence reserved for madmen) that Rudd never had any illusions about winning Australian redneck votes by hardening against refugees, but having shored up his domestic support is willing to lose a sliver of approval in the process of buttering up some UN members who have turned their citizens into refugees. It won’t impress the western countries very much, but that’s what the pre-Copenhagen CPRS is for.

‘That was the Howard government’s unique achievement. That is what places it outside of the run of all previous Australian governments. That is what it will be remembered for in a half-century’s time. That is all it will be remembered for.

‘Oh, and Iraq. The quinella. ‘

Right on Guy. Oh and we’ve bought your book.

We’ve been through all this at great length, all the myths you repeat such as “queue jumpers”, “illegal immigrants”, and “not genuine refugees”, have been so busted, so many times, and even in the tabloids, that if you don’t already get it you are one of those people who are beyond reasoning with. I don’t know about “most Australians”, but yes there are a significant number of wilfully ignorant intransigents in the community who, for some reason that still escapes me, think that a few thousand extra refugees are some sort of crisis. Busting your myths again and again appears to be a waste of time.

Just one thing though. You say, “The basic premise that those persons who can afford boat passages can freely take residence in Australia is ridiculous. If such access was allowed our immigration policy would become chaotic.”

Mate you forgot to ask your DIMA contact whether it was already chaotic. My DIMA contact (who is not a senior officer like yours, but is a junior officer who actually knows what’s going on) tells me the systems are such an utter shambles that they are “just waiting for the next Cornelia Rau”.

The number of vanished tourists and fraudulent student visa holders utterly dwarfs the small problem of boat people. In fact if the boat people weren’t so politically controversial, they would not have a big impact on DIMAs resources. DIMA would just do what it does … about as well as it does anything: sort them, question them, separate the sheep from the small number of wolves and opportunists, and deport those who don’t pass muster.

Introduce mandatory detention, and it starts to be a real headache. Introduce the Pacific Solution and now the Indonesia Solution, and you’re talking diplomatic chaos, legal chaos, gargantuan expense (but on the Foreign Affairs budget, not Immigration any more). DIMA then has to do its investigations remotely. And in the end over 90 per cent of the boat people satisfy the standards set by the UN convention we are party to, so we end up letting them stay anyway.

Good analysis drains anger and promotes objective action.

http://australianconservative.com/main-site/2009/10/gotcha-deputy-pm/

The point within that video extract where Gillard gapes, gobsmacked, and perhaps reveals an inner sense of conscience, is at 1 min 42 seconds.

Arguably far more encouraging that she indicates shame?

Indeed in yesterday’s question time a male voice was heard at Turnbull ‘you are better than that Malcolm’. There sure does seem to be a struggle for the soul of federal parliament at play at the moment. Whereas under Howard as drawn by Moir it was all one eyed.

It was last Wednesday or so, about a week gone now, when I spat the dummy on a crikey string about this topic along the lines of “Hey Science saw you on the tv last night. This is your Bonhoeffer (you f****** worm).”

I think in good taste it was removed as I tried to find it again without luck to see how the comments skewed after that. Fair enough. It was immoderate.

But it was quite calculated wrath. I knew the humanising of Brinda editorial choice by the Big Media was a pivot for them, for the country, and for Rudd’s reputation, and thought what the hell, Science deserves it right between the chops - metaphorically speaking.

And I still hold to the medium to long term real politik: If you exercise authority to defend the weak, no matter how unpopular, the relative strong in the audience take note psychologically that if ever they are unlucky enough to become that weak party, they will have a friend to defend them. In that sense social harmony is reinforced. But it takes courage to exercise that existing authority too and maybe we are seeing some of that steel in elements of the ALP. Like Gillard start of question time yesterday. Certainly a profound vaulting beyond the Oakes interview 2 days before. (And she had the character to look ashamed live on tv there too which this viewer took heart from.)

Sorry, although a reflex anti conservative and oft derided “lefty”, I cannot agree with your defense for “asylum seekers” and derision for those who do not support them.

The basic premise that those persons who can afford boat passages can freely take residence in Australia is ridiculous. If such access was allowed our immigration policy would become chaotic. There would also be very significant social and economic ramifications

The constant refrain that these people are usually determined to be genuine refugees is also ridiculous, as virtually no factual investigations of individual claims are undertaken in countries of origin. As the government is therefore completely incapable of disproving claims of persecution etc refugee status cannot be denied. I have confirmed this situation with a senior officer of DIMA.

In terms of compassion etc, my consience is clear, and I’m confident the three poor Asian families that I have already sponsored into Australia would attest to that.

However, in relation to “boat people”, to me they are just que jumpers and prospective illegal immigrants.

Would you agree that most Australian agree with that opinion?
Sincerely