Jayb, I can't understand what you are saying I am wrong about. Can you boil it down into specific propositions that can be answered yes or no?

I am using the Convention definition of refoulement.

As for economic migrants, you're getting confused over semantics.

*If* someone has well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion *and* they desire to migrate in hopes of a better economic life, *then* they are a refugee. The fact they also hope for a better economic life does not disqualify them from being a refugee. It's completely irrelevant.

Do you disagree with that paragraph?

If you do, you're wrong. The UNHCR does not disagree with it.

Nor do I disagree that someone who wants a better life and does *not* have well-founded fear of being persecuted for a Convention reason, is not a refugee, and not immune from refoulement.

You have not shown that anything I have said is wrong, but if you have, then be clearer in identifying what it is.

James O'Neill,

You claim that ""Turning back the boats" is worse than a political slogan. It is a breach of international law."

Actually it is not a breach of international law. The law is very clear that any country is free to intercept boats in international waters en route to the country where there are indications that the intention is to breach the country's laws.

Interceptions and turnarounds of drug and people smuggler boats is a policy presently being used by several countries.

Shadow Minister. As you often do you are conflating separate issues which only serve to confuse the matter.

I refer you to my earlier post at 5.37pm on 12 February when I cited the case of Hirsi Jamaa & Others v Italy, a unanimous decision of the European Court of Human Rights (14 Judges). That case discusses precisely the point that has been raised by you and others.

JKJ is correct that the ECHR is not binding on Australian courts. But that is beside the point. It would require a powerful submission to an Australian Court that the ECHR decision was wrong and should not be followed here. I know which case I would rather be arguing.

James, are you saying that non-citizens without a visa have a "right" in international law to enter Australia so as to lodge a claim for protection?

You said that Australia is operating outside the law and international obligations, but which specifically?

JKJ

All persons intercepted on the high seas o elsewhere have the right to have their claim for asylum considered by a proper authority and with a right of appeal against an adverse decision. That is abundantly clear from the Convention to which we are a signatory and a significant body of case law that has built up.

Australia is stopping people on the high seas and turning them around. Even giving them a seaworthy boat to do so. Prima facie that is a breach of the Convention. It may sit well with some of the commenters above and others for whom "stopping the boats" satisfied their prejudices, but it is not in accordance with our international obligations.

JKJ: You have not shown that anything I have said is wrong, but if you have, then be clearer in identifying what it is.

Would this make it clearer.

Article 1 F of the 1951 Convention:

Refugee status is not granted to;

3) Persons considered not to be deserving of international protection

“The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

This would apply to any person who was a member of the Tamil Tigers. Australia has a right/duty to return such people to SRI Lanka as they could or would pose a danger to the Australian Community & need to face a court in Sri Lanka.

JKJ: The fact they also hope for a better economic life does not disqualify them from being a refugee. Yes it does.

PART ONE – Criteria for the Determination of Refugee Status

CHAPTER I – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Economic migrants distinguished from refugees

62.(f) A migrant is a person who, for reasons other than those contained in the definition, voluntarily leaves his country in order to take up residence elsewhere. He may be moved by the desire for change or adventure, or by family or other reasons of a personal nature. If he is moved exclusively by economic considerations, he is an economic migrant and not a refugee.

A person from the Local Village who just wants to earn money for his family back in Sri Lanka does not qualify as a refugee. It seems like 50% qualify for Article 1 F of the Convention & 50% qualify for Ch1. 62 (f) does it not?

Is that clearer?