Banjo

"By the way they are classified as 'illegals' or 'unlawfull entrants' and do not become 'asylum seekers' untill they apply for asylum."

International law clearly states that all people have the right to claim asylum. Anyone who arrives by boat or plane to seek protection in another country is automatically an asylum seeker, irrespective of whether they've officially applied for asylum or not. They might not necessarily be refugees, though the overwhelming majority who arrive by boat are, but they are asylum seekers. Calling them 'illegals' is ignorant and wrong.

Horus

"One of the first things you learn in primary school is you can only compare like things: apple & apples – NOT apples( Australia ) & lemons ( Pakistan).
i) Does Pakistan house, clothe and feeds all those illegal’s?
ii) Does Pakistan grant these illegals -or even a sizable percentage of them- citizenship? the answer to both, NYET!
It’s a faux comparison/argument designed to shame those who don’t know the background facts."

Okay, let's compare apples with apples then. We can ignore the fact, if you like, that countries like Pakistan, Syria, Jordan and Iran are struggling to deal with hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees at any one time. Let's look at what other industrialised nations are dealing with. In 2008, around 49 000 asylum claims were made in the United States, 37 000 in Canada, 35 000 in France, 31 000 in Italy and 30 000 in the UK. In Australia, we had less than 5000 and as pointed out by Banjo the majority of these are plane arrivals who are sent packing on the next flight.

The number of asylum seekers coming to Australia, in comparison to the millions of displaced people in the world, is miniscule. It's nothing compared to what many other nations are dealing with. Our paranoia over a few defenceless asylum seekers is out of all perspective.

Bronwyn “They might not necessarily be refugees, though the overwhelming majority who arrive by boat are, but they are asylum seekers. Calling them 'illegals' is ignorant and wrong.”

I am at a loss to think what else should someone be called who is not a refugee and attempts to deliberately evade Australian Migration laws other than “Illegal”

If they are not evading persecution who are they seeking “asylum” from… the boogey man?

As to “ignorant” well what is more apt and “ignorant free”

Maybe “Un-entitled”
How about “Usurper”
Perhaps “Anarchist”

I think maybe, instead of calling illegals "illegal", we could call them the

"Ignorant" - of Australian Statutes and settlement requirements and obligations.

But somehow, for me, the term “illegal Alien” seems just so appropriate and acceptable.

And speaking personally, one illegal alien is no different to another illegal alien…

commonsense declares : no one is entitled to ignore the laws of the community they anticipate assimilation into.

Re “Our paranoia over a few defenceless asylum seekers is out of all perspective.”

Already answered re…. Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 27 May 2009 9:34:12 AM

“whilst a small leak might be tolerable and accommodated , its prolonged erosive effect upon the dam fabric soon opens up the breach and turns the small tickle which passes through into a torrent which floods all before it.”

Speaking if "ignorant and wrong", good old Col weighs in with a post which is a very good example of both.

I've already quoted from the relevant part of the Dept of Immigration and Citizenship website. There is no such classification as "illegals", no matter how much Col and others of his ilk want there to be.

Last year illegal arrivals by boat were 25. So far this year we have apprehended 724 and the indonesians 900, that is 1500 total. A big difference and these would be arrivals set out with criminal intent.i,e. to enter Australia in direct contravention of our laws.

No matter what spin CJM and Bronwyn put on that activity and try to paint them in a better light, they are 'unlawful entrants'. It is quite right to call them illegals or illegal aliens.

One can call a thief a 'shop lifter' but by any definition he/she is still a thief.

It is remarkable that some can find nothing better than to split hairs over what these law breakers are termed.

Browyn,
Re: comparing apples:
1) “ Pakistan, Syria, Jordan and Iran are struggling to deal with hundreds of thousands if not millions of refugees at any one time”
Highly delusory– since the cost of housing , and feeding such “refugees” is borne largely by the UN & NGOs, who on the most part draw their funding from Western nations (& a few Arab nations, like Saudi Arabia), not the treasuries of Pakistan, Syria et la.

2) “Other industrialised nations are dealing with.In 2008, around 49 000 asylum claim were made in the United States, 37 000 in Canada, 35 000 in France, 31 000 in Italy and 30 000 in the UK ...etc”
Highly delusory – since the line you're pushing is that Aust is not pulling its weight.An argument that was well and truly debunked in a similar thread, last time, by rstuart.http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2702#60657
As I recall you were most active on that thread – so you would hardly have missed it – yet, you still drag out that tired, old, discredited argument.

And you mentioned Italy on your list of exemplars, you may like to read up on the lasted load of illegal’s, that arrived in Italy http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/268140,italy-deports-more-would-be-immigrants-to-libya.html
And we are likely to see a lot more of it and, not just from Italy.

Re: comparing paranoias:
3) “Our paranoia over a few defenceless asylum seekers”
Paranoia, may be apt, especially when applied to many “refugee” advocates, who continue -in their self deluding way - to see some of our most recent arrivals as “defenceless” despite they having employed routes and ruses to get to our shores which would have trumped some of the most hardened con-men.

Banjo

"It is remarkable that some can find nothing better than to split hairs over what these law breakers are termed."

No-one is splitting hairs, Banjo. You're deliberately using false terminology and those interested in fairness will continue to point it out, not for your sake, but for the sake of others. You've been told time and time again you're wrong, but you've ignored all well-meaning advice, and now that you're again being corrected, you attempt to fob these corrections off as 'spin' and 'hair splitting'.

Labelling asylum seekers as 'illegals' is a lazy attempt to gain sympathy for your argument. Continue to do it, Banjo, and I will continue to expose your ignorance, no matter how tiresome it might be.

Perhaps an internal ABC memo might help clarify the situation. You can wallow in your own ignorance as long as you like, Banjo, but others might be interested in fairness and accuracy.

'We use the term "asylum seekers" for people who arrive in Australia (or Australian waters) without travel documents, claiming (or apparently claiming) refugee status. If the Australian authorities decide they have a valid claim for protection, they would become "refugees". Don't use inappropriate modifiers with the term "asylum seeker", such as "unlawful asylum seeker". There's no such thing as an "unlawful" asylum seeker because under international law anyone can apply for asylum.

We use the term "illegal immigrant" for anyone arriving in Australia without proper papers who is not claiming refugee status or whose claim for protection has been rejected; or anyone whose visa has expired and who is therefore not legally entitled to stay in Australia.

We do not use the term "boat people" and we do not refer to "illegal refugees".

A simple "asylum seekers" is the way to go.'

Extract from News & Current Affairs Style Guide - August 2006

Yes, simple really, Banjo, even for you!