Our governments have signed agreements to help
these people so they are obligated to do so
whilst these people are in our country unless
we renege on our agreements altogether.

Dear Sonofgloin,

To summarise what you wrote, "parents are bad, society is good".

I presume that the parents are "sinful" because they wanted to live in a better continent and also because they brought along their children so they can enjoy freedom and prosperity here, a continent which you call yours because your forefathers have conquered and taken it by force 240 years ago.

Still you are willing to accept those children provided they are indoctrinated in your ways: Never occurred to you that the villains are actually the society and those who claim to represent it?

Foxy,
The question is academic for Australia, as we don't have a problem with 'illegals', thanks to Abbott and Morisson. Except for a few leftovers from Rudd and Gillard.

You had best be asking the Europeans. The parents should have considered how they expect to provide for their kids before they left to impose themselves on others. Not fair to expect others to provide for them.

Any way that is Europe's problem. We solved the problem here.

Dear Banjo,

Actually the question is very relevant.

We do have a large problem in this country.
The larger numbers arriving by plane outnumbered
the boat people.

According to records illegals make up a far
larger percentage of people than did the boat
people. They come in by plane, as workers,
tourists who overstay, back-packers and family
members of residents, and the list goes on.

And until the status of people's claims are assessed
people and their children are detained in various places.
Should their children receive an education is therefore
very relevant.

Toni,

Well, it sounds a lot less rude than "effable". Like "ept", "gruntled" or "couth", I don't quite know what "effable" could mean.

I suppose there could be some children of some illegal immigrants here in Australia, perhaps from PNG across the Strait. But it wouldn't be up to any school, or Ed. Dept. to check out the status of children as they enrol: any kid who could show evidence that they were old enough to start would be enrolled, surely ?

Of course any such children should get a full education. Their rights to an education surely Trump any rights by any state authority to deny them one.

Joe

Yuyutsu>> To summarise what you wrote, "parents are bad, society is good".<<

Yuyutsu, I can’t see where you got that abridged version from what I wrote. If my words portrayed that to you it was not my intention or premise.

Like the tone of all scriptures written by a society thousands of years ago the language is unambiguous and blunt. I honestly would have thought that you could distil the meaning to encompass its passage into our modern society.
Just as the scripture recounts “if your eye offends you, pluck it out”, there is a literal inconsistency with practical application, but the core of the message is still valid.

What I meant to convey by “the sins of the father” quote was that children should not be held accountable for the acts of their parents. A concept written into the Judeo Christian doctrines thousands of years ago. So if the parents break the law by entering a country illegally, the children should not be held accountable. If the parents are held in detention, the children should not. They should be free to associate and cared for in that society until their parent’s status is resolved.

“Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man” That was the Jesuit motto, alleged to be attributed to their founder Francis Xavier. Children are ultimately malleable. Between nature and nurture, nurture has more tenure, unless the character is that of a sociopath. So to take away the freedom of association of a child because of the illegal actions of the parents is counterproductive to that child’s view of the society.