"Ginx
“Firstly: as Bronwyn has indicated elsewhere, the status 'illegal' is yet to be proved. You may not like that, but it IS the case.

Not correct. Under the Migration Act, it is against the law for a non-citizen to enter Australia without a visa, and the Act’s term for someone who does so is “unlawful non-citizen”." (Quote:WALy)
______________________

Is that so? Well I'll have to make some checks won't I?

You may be right. You never know.............

".....Under the Migration Act, it is against the law for a non-citizen to enter Australia without a visa..."

Incorrect. Now it's YOUR turn to make some checks. (The High Court/Federal Parliament).

The terminology 'illegal'. This is interesting. It has taken on the same shape as the argument about global warming. Depends where you look. Still working on it. I love legal research, don't you WALy?

It occurs to me that though that the argument over the terminology 'illegal' is very obviously split between those who need that terminology to denigrate and diminish those whom they wish to categorise most derogatory way;-and those who see asylum seekers as...well, human beings, and not criminals and terrorists.

The beat will go on.

I am surprised about the confusion about the term illegal, the dictionary definition:

: not according to or authorized by law : unlawful

So if you are not a citizen, and are present in the country without a valid visa, you are not authorised to be present and are thus illegal.

That the asylum seekers may be able to claim residence does not make them lawful at the time of entry, and until such time as they do get a valid visa ipso facto they are without doubt illegal.

Wobbles,

Less than 20% of those that come by boat get to stay in Aus, not the 90% you claim.

As for “What makes you think that Howard's policies towards asylum seekers stopped them from coming?”

South Africa has a porous border with the rest of Africa, and has 10 to 12m illegal immigrants, and in spite of deporting 1000s per month they know that their chances of staying are good.

They know that the chances of getting into Aus are very poor and thus don't take the risk.

Shadow Minister,

The figure from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship is that 84% of those who arrive unauthorised in Australia seeking asylum are found to be refugees.

The 90% I used was for those on the Tampa. I don't know where your 20% came from.

It's also not illegal to be a refugee.

Under International and Australian law a person fleeing persecution is an asylum seeker, which is a legal status.

On the other hand, according to the Department of Immigration, people are considered to have arrived in Australia illegally if they "arrive with no travel documents or present documentation which is found to be fraudulent".

This 'criminalisation' of asylum seekers is in conflict with their basic human rights. They may be detained while their cases are evaluated.

Given the circumstances from which most asylum seekers flee: war, chaos and oppressive authorities which hold 'blacklists' of people they will not allow to leave, many asylum seekers have no choice but to arrive in Australia without proper documentation. Others come from countries which do not generally issue identity documents or passports.

When the number of boats coming here seemed to stop, the flow of refugees had reduced globally and now it's increasing (globally) again.

Ginx
It is not a matter of opinion, but simply a fact that under current law a non-citizen who enters Australia without a visa is classified as an unlawful non-citizen.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s14.html

('the migration zone' basically means Australia.)

Whether people are in favour of asylum seekers, and see them as deserving sympathy and support, or against them and see them as bludging interlopers, has got nothing to do with the question of fact as to legality or illegality.

wobbles
Asylum-seeker means someone applying for recognition of refugee status. Refugee means someone who has applied for and been recognised as having refugee status.

Criminalising asylum-seekers for entering the country is not in breach of their basic human rights under current law, because human rights law does not recognise a right to enter a foreign country without a visa.

Perhaps it should but that would make nation-states a whole different ball game. I'm not defending the current situation, I'm just describing what the legal status is. I personally think we should have more refugees, and less so-called welfare handouts generally including less occupational licensing.

bushbasher
My figure of 12% was from the Immigration Department and was for the total population of applicants for refugee status; but it's also now dated. I used to be an immigration lawyer and the overall proportion was pretty constant from year to year; but I see your specific figure of 84% refugee status is no doubt correct for all boat people.

thanks, wing. if you were an immigration lawyer then you can probably also confirm how much the evaluation process is hugely erratic, and hugely stacked against an asylum seeker.