P,

To seek asylum you need to have legitimate fears that you will be killed or persecuted in the country of your origin. Otherwise, you are not a refugee deserving of asylum.

The Sri Lankans were processed individually and could not provide any evidence of any threat to them in Sri Lanka. That meets the requirements of the charter if you have bothered to actually read it.

Hi Poirot,

Arguing with the forums self proclaimed legal know-it-all is a waste of time. The idea that people fleeing persecution in their own country should be carrying on their person evidence of that persecution is a nonsense. When SM say; "could not provide any evidence of any threat to them in Sri Lanka.", exactly what would he consider as "evidence", I have no idea, and obviously the Coalition government for almost 10 years couldn't prove these peoples status either. Therefore they were left in limbo, enough is enough.

Poirot,

Anything you read from the site resident ignoramus is vacuous nonsense or lies.

Coming from a country in which all hostilities had ceased years ago and there was no overt persecution Sri Lankans would have to give a valid reason for seeking asylum. None were able to and thus were repatriated as per the charter.

Someone seeking asylum from the UK would have similar problems.

The gibbering coming from apologists for illegal border jumpers and criminal people smugglers about an outdated an irrelevant convention from 1951 is simplistic, breath-taking ignorance. All ideology and zero knowledge.

SM,

As usual you resort to name calling, if its not "village idiot" or "fwit" which you use liberally, its "ignoramus". If that's all you've got, so be it.

The recent civil war in Sri Lanka raged from 1983 to 2009, there had been lesser outbreaks in the 50's and 70's, the recent fighting ended with the Sri Lankan military defeating the separatist rebels (Tamil Tigers). The war ending did not stop the persecution of the minatory Sri Lankan Tamils by the Sinhalese majority dominated Sri Lankan Government, and it continues to this day. If you think that the ending of the civil war brought instant peace and harmony to the country, then you are uninformed and mistaken.

Anyway, none of the above is of concern or interest to you, you are a racists hater who has no concern for those not like you, be they black or brown. So like your forum nonsense about Aboriginals, just cut to the chase and say; "They're not white, so kick the bastards out!" much simpler for you, and Dutton should do the same.

Poirot; SM quote; "Anything you read from the site resident ignoramus (Paul1405) is vacuous nonsense or lies." This bloke wants to be "loved", so feel free to "entertain" him, he certainly needs it.

SM,

No war?

I seem to remember Dutton spouting about white farmers in South Africa facing “persecution” at the hands of a black majority government - and that Australia should open its arms to them.

Obviously he considered them the right colour?

Also, as of October 2019, 95,000 people had flown into Australia seeling asylum in the five years previous to that ... under the "tough on borders" Coalition. - 84% being found not to meet the criteria ... that leaves around 15,000 who had at that point been granted protection.

Noting that these asylum seekers are not sent to offshore islands to be tormented and tortured - that is reserved for previous boat arrivals, something which does not happen these days with our ADF doing their maritime thing (unless it's organised in desperation by a Coalition government knowing it's about to get the boot). So, for those still on the islands - the cruelty is the point.

Yes, Paul, I must admit a certain sizable cohort on this site are extremely odious - probably why there are so few posting here these days compared to its hay day.