how about a contextual comparison between the desperately impoverished refugees who manage to make it into a neighbouring country and languish for years on virtually nothing, to a planned (yes, very dangerous and arduous) financed trip to another continent. More consideration/priority should be given to these poor souls in the camps who are, to my mind refugees highest in the queue.

because the definition used by the UN is the one that counts. rather the one used by weasel politicians pandering to the redneck vote.

the overstay visa argument is quite a separate issue. They have had passports vetted and the authorities know who they are. They have not queue jumped, haven't taken the place of another refugee, as do the boat arrivals. They are on notice of imminent deportation at any time. They aren't on welfare. Its a bizarre comparison.

Jonathan, if you are concerned about common sense and the 'swamping of due process', then, logically, you should be more concerned about people who are living illegally in Australia by overstaying their visas. According to the Department of Immigration, 'In the 2009–10 financial year, it was estimated that around 15 800 people overstayed their visa'. This compares to Australia's 13 750 legal refugee intake cap.