Totally agree. The contradiction between open borders for trade but not people ranks up there as one of the great hypocrisies of the great god globalisation.

But I constantly find myself asking _why_ do we treat asylum seekers so badly? Why do politicians from both parties practice such deliberate policies of fear and loathing towards people who are different ethnically and culturally? Why don?t we treat white intruders the same way?

I have a theory: I reckon you can trace Australian attitudes towards anybody who's different back to the penal colony beginnings of Australia. It's only a coupla hundred years since the place was settled by whites, a mere blip in the process of accretion of cultural layers. Australia started off as a penal colony of petty criminals and debtors, and ruled by military bureaucrats. The practices and values established then have filtered down over the years, and you see them in the punitive way we treat interlopers who look and act differently.

The asylum-seekers are different by virtue of their colour, religion, ethnicity and culture. They?re not _like_ us. Not quite civilised. And how dare they try and eat from the same table, when we who were born here or have paid our dues have played the game? From there it?s a quick two-step to demonisation and harsh treatment in concentration camps.

For me, this whole issue lays bare just how fragile our ?civilisation? is, how real the possibility of a totalitarian state is. In my more morose moments I see it just around the corner.

This presupposes that Australia was always a bastion of tolerance and diversity which historically it never was. White Australia anyone? The whole national myth of mateship and egalitarianism which John Howard triumphs with such effect was in part created between men in 'hard times' and was based on white exclusivity and certainly didn't include the 'yellow peril' from the North. It appears fairly easy to fall back into this way of thinking in times of international turmoil especially if politicians exploit the issue.

Minister Ruddock is merely doing his best to maintain logical consistency in our policy of ordered migration in the face of a media that likes to seize on emotional examples, rather than explore the consequences of the open border policy which it is implicitly promoting.

Making exceptions for the most media-worthy cases, like the Balinese children, is hardly a basis for responsible policy, but the media campaign has, from the start, been based on highlighting individuals (like the Afghan refugee - sorry, Pakistani plumber - who had them fooled for so long).

Incidentally, the "contradiction" between advocating free trade and opposing free migration is equally applicable to the reverse positions, especially when you realise it isn't a contradiction at all. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that one of these policies works to the benefit of humanity and the other does not.

Ps - I am the son of a "Yellow Peril" migrant who does not believe in open door policies. In my mother's original home of Malaysia, the consequences of "multiculturalism" are all too evident. Yet I spent my Keating era school days being encouraged to think of myself as a hyphenated half-Chinese-Australian. I will be happy to increase our intake of refugees when the Left stops using government funding to actively encourage migrants not to assimilate. Until then, I'd rather not join in the fun of Europe's ethnic ghettos and race riots.

Alan I do not think that you can write 'humanity' here. Free trade may very well benefit humanity, but closed borders to asylum seekers benefits Australia not humanity.

That's what undermines the Minister's logical consistency. He tries to justify closed borders through appeals to universalism. It jars. I interpret it to mean he has not fully shifted to a conservative discourse that rejects univeralism.

I am not advocating an open border policy by the way. The nation state has a right to say who enters and leaves the country. But it is not an absolute right---Australia has signed up, and is a party to, various international treaties and various obligations to other nation states.

The multiculturalism/ assimilation scenario re the nation state that you raise is another issue. It is the way that the state should treat its citizens.

"But it is not an absolute right---Australia has signed up, and is a party to, various international treaties and various obligations to other nation states."
No AUSTRALIA (if you mean the people of Australia) did NOT sign up up anything. Such agreements were effected without reference to the people on which they impact.
Lets have some national plebiscites to see just waht the people of Australia do support!