FINALLY. I can post again! PLEASE up the post rate on Articles Graham.

WALy: I think I'm right in suggesting that the High Court of Australia has a wee bit of influence in the rulings it hands down. I thank you for your link;-it certainly looks impressive. But you really need to delve much deeper into legal archives. Google just won't do it.

I'm also bound to say that your posting style of dismissing the views of others one by one, suggests some elevated sense of being the Anointed One Who Knows All.

You don't.

(Very slow to log on. Two attempts).

1) Some have wondered if Australia might become a harsher place if we implemented a tougher refugee stand. It needs to be understood that most countries in our region have much harsher refugee positions than Australia and, not all of them are cold cruel worlds.

The reality is that Australia is, in the long term, far more likely to become a harsher society by adopting a more relaxed refugee program which would, judging by past performance, result in new laws & ‘education’ programs designed to ‘protect’ minority sensitivities.

2) Others have wondered whether we should be a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Frankly, I doubt if us withdrawing would make an iota of difference .

Even without the convention we’d likely be the recipients of boat loads of illegals.
The attraction is our affluence .

And once they had arrived there would be, as now, a hue and cry for us to be ‘humane’ and accept them. There are elements who need to have a bleeding heart cause –and such causes are even more newsworthy and attractive if they entail flouting official positions .Some on the pro-refugee side have already made it known they are prepared to break the law –housing and hiding illegals if need be

"Blame" who to blame for a person who attempts to circumvent Australias right to screen potential asylum seekers (for those who might be carrying infectious diseases, criminal habits or terrorist inclinations)?

by applying a long standing legal maxim, the correct place to lay all "blame" is simple

"Volenti non fit injuria"

anyone who unilaterally decides to attempt a clandestine entry into Australia and suffers as a consequence, has only themselves to blame.

Wobbles,

I was talking about people being granted asylum. Being recognised as a refugee does not get you asylum in Aus.

Try

http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html
and
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ESnhla_XYzoC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=asylum+seekers+acceptance+rates&source=bl&ots=pk2X9X79vN&sig=MBHvKb1B-7cW7pspOPwjE2dh4pk&hl=en&ei=qFD-ScTOEJ6ytAOYidXhAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&safe=active#PPA12,M1

With regards the Tampa incident:

"Of the 433 asylum seekers rescued by the Tampa, 131 were immediately resettled in New Zealand. The remaining 302 were processed on Nauru. Of these, 101 were found to be refugees, 14 were resettled as non-refugees, one died and 186 returned home after failing to win refugee status."

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/tampa-asylum-seekers-genuine-refugees-20090328-9ek0.html?page=-1

So 101 of 433 were granted asylum in Aus and 186 returned home. So I fail to see the 90% (232/433 = 54%)

The figures for recognition of refugee status is about 90% for afghans and lower for all other countries.

When the expression illegal refugee is used, it does not mean that it is illegal to be a refugee, rather that the refugee has entered the country illegally. Similar to it not being illegal to be alien, but you can be an illegal alien.

Shadow Minister,

I stand corrected on the final Tampa stats but not the 84% Department of Immigration numbers.

I presume that the only way you can legally claim refugee status is to first arrive in another country with a valid passport and all the other legal permissions as granted by the country that is actively persecuting you.

You can't apply while inside your own country (at a foreign embassy for example) because by definition, a refugee must already be outside their own country to have that status.

Then they would need to pass through Customs after convincing them that they are here for a legitimate reason.

Obviously the majority arriving here do, but those aren't the ones that everybody seems focussed on.

Wobbles,

I have searched the immigration website and cannot find the stats to which you refer.

What I did find though from various different articles on the website is that of those detained, only a small portion are granted residence.

Considering that boat persons made up about 40% in detention, this makes your 84% difficult to swallow. However, if you could point me in the direction of these figures I would stand to be corrected.

Until then I cannot find anything that supports your claim.