Does a country have the right to protect it's borders?

[poddster]

To what lengths should a country go to to protect its inhabitants and borders?

[cherry*135]

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (commonly known as the Refugee Convention) to which Australia is a signatory.

The Refugee Convention also stipulates that refugees should not be penalised for entering a country without prior authorisation if they are fleeing from danger and present themselves to authorities. Hence, 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 also contains guidance about recognition of civil rights and access to employment, education and the legal system.

[para-sights]

Well that's the States Jimmy not Australia (although I've met a few Australians in Canada and The US who are deliberately overstaying their visas hoping to fall off the grid and stay). the only harm and injury seems to be happening to the "boat people" from our over zealous protection not the other way around

[cherry*135]

---

@poddster wrote:

From anything that may be harmful or injurious, am*3.

Do any of the things you mentioned fall int the above category?  

---

I think you could work that out for yourself easy enough.

[jimmy*part4]

---

@poddster wrote:

I enjoyed the clip Jimmy and your sentiments

---

Oh yeah? Where's my kudo, lol.

Daily, reading the papers, watching the news....serious crimes commited by an illegal.

As we "speak" on the news....an illegal killed her newborn. Blunt force trama to the head. Her reason....she claimed she was "the R" word. Hit and run....pedestrian killed, illegal....drunk.  Murder....illegal. And that's just while posting here this morning.

[poddster]

am*3, nowhere have I mentioned or implied refugees.

The question is

Does a country have the right to protect it's borders?

[cherry*135]

I think you know the answer to that as well.

[poddster]

---

@am*3 wrote:

I think you know the answer to that as well.

---

Yes I do and I admit it and stand by it unlike a lot of others who either do not know it or choose to be selective in it's application. 

[jimmy*part4]

---

@para-sights wrote:

Well that's the States Jimmy not Australia (although I've met a few Australians in Canada and The US who are deliberately overstaying their visas hoping to fall off the grid and stay). the only harm and injury seems to be happening to the "boat people" from our over zealous protection not the other way around

---

True, it's the states. But the same thoughts apply. You don't want to make things so cushy for illegals, once you do the flood will arrive and the same things I mentioned will happen there.

I don't agree with your "over zealous" protection (and said that in my first post), but on the other hand I wish our borders were as secure as yours.

[carls*world]

---

@poddster wrote:

To what lengths should a country go to to protect its inhabitants and borders?

---

 A bit more than Poland did in 1939.

[acacia_pycnantha]

We don't have anywhere near as comparable a threat to our borders. it's just hysteria to suggest so.