Lexi,

If, by your words, their entry is not authorized, then it by definition is not complying with the letter of the law and is not lawful. Thus it is unlawful or illegal.

The term illegal covers the most heinous crime to the most minor infraction. While you would like the term never to be used, it is technically correct.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Asylum seekers who arrive in Asutralia by boat are not acting illegally.
The UN Refugee Convention
(to which Australia is a signatory) recognises
that refugees have a lawful right to
enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless
of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or
identity documents. The Convention stipulates that what
would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g entering a
country without a visa) shall not be treated as illegal if
a person is seeking asylum.

Therefore in line with our obligations under the onvention,
Australian law permits "unauthorised" entry into Australia for
the purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore asylum seekers do
not break any Australian law simply by arriving on boats or
without "authorisation."

This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who
arrive "without authorisation" as "Illegal" entrants
as in fact they DO have a lawful and legal right to enter
Australia to seek asylum.

BTW - asylum seekers want authorities to find them.
Illegtal immigrants do not

If there was any doubt a boat was reported arriving with 184 people on it making the April figure 3319 welfare invaders.

Also 3 boats with over 500 people were detected in one day not sure yet if this includes the above boat.

This from an incompetent Government that Budgeted for 450 arrivals per month.

Hi Den71,

First of all apologies for my tardy response, am extremely busy at the moment so I don’t always have time to drop into OLO--in fact, I wasn’t even going to make the visit this morning.

Can see now why you are going wrong; gleaning your information from sources like Naomi Klein, Helen Caldicott, John Pilger et la! That lot would be enough to send anyone around the (left) bend .Incidentally, the word “balance” or any of its derivatives should not be used in any paragraph which mentions the aforementioned names unless attached to “lack of” or “one eyed”

It’s also quite fitting that you mention Allah in your very next sentence since most who are favorably disposed towards the athreementioned are also favorably disposed towards Allah and his follows – seeing them as brothers-in-arms in their jihad against the great Satan ;) .

Cheers

_______________________________________________________________

Hi Lexi,

Sorry to burst your bubble but you really must read what people have linked you (10,000 times before)


<<The facts are:

Neither asylum seekers, nor refugees have a right to enter, without authority, a country which is not their country of nationality.

The use of the word 'illegal' or 'unlawful' to describe asylum seekers entering a country without authority is standard international practice, not least by signatory states to the Refugees Convention. This is because the Refugees Convention (Article 31) explicitly refers to the "illegal entry or presence" of refugees who arrive in the territory of a country "without authorisation".>>

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters04/Press_Council_28_June.htm

Dear SPQR,

Generally speaking "illegal immigrants" are people
who enter a country without meeting the legal requirements
for entry (without a valid visa, for example).

However under Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, The Migration Act 1958 and the UN Refugee
Convention refugees have a legal right to enter a country
for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they
arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity
documents. The Convention clearly stipulates that what would
usually be considered as illegal actions (eg. entering a
country without a visa) shall not be treated as illegal if a
person is seeking asylum.

This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers
who arrive "without authorisation," as "illegal" entrants as
in fact they have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek
asylum.

Permitting asylum seekers to enter a country without travel
documents is similar to allowing ambulance drivers to exceed the
speed limit in an emergency. The action would be ordinarily
considered illegal, but under the circumstances it's
reasonable to make an exception.

You can't be "illegal" or "unlawful" if you're not breaking
any law.

Australian and International laws make allowances for asylum
seekers because as stated in the Department of Immigration
fact sheets, "It isn't always safe or practicable for asylum
seekers to obtain travel documents or to travel through
authorised channels."

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-17/cassidy-a-rare-challenge-for-abbott/4203120

cont'd ...

Dear SPQR,

The letter written by Stewart Foster way back in 2004 certainly
caused controversy at the time. Because it encouraged all the
usual suspects to react. However Media Watch was contacted by
The Australian Press Council - and Mr Foster's interpretation
was of course not accurate. Anyway read it for yourself:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2553917.htm