This article examines the claim that democratic states are justified in restricting access to asylum seekers on the grounds that failing to do so reduces public support for humanitarian refugee policies – referred to here as the humanitarian defence. Drawing on detailed historical, comparative and interpretive analysis of migration policy in Canada and Australia, the author builds on Matthew Gibney’s development of practically guided normative theory to assess cases in which political elites may legitimately enact restrictive policies in response to strong public opposition. Challenging the normative basis of the humanitarian defence, the article engages in a detailed discourse analysis of asylum crises in Canada (1987, 1999) and Australia (1979, 2001). The findings suggest that political elites do not respond to an independently arrived at, and objectively established, public opinion as implied in the humanitarian defence. Rather, political elites play a crucial role in shaping the discourse on asylum seekers and consequently, influence the very “public opinion” to which they claim to be responding. The author concludes that political elites should attempt to foster an environment in which the public accepts international obligations to refugees but accepts that in some cases political elites may be justified in implementing restrictive measures.