Should genuine asylum seekers be called illegals?

[donnashuggy]

If they arrive by boat? Scott Morrison thinks so:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/minister-wants-boat-people-called-illegals-...

[**meep**]

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

Many genuine asylum seekers come by boat meep, he is without a doubt labeling them as "illegals". There is no justification for that.

---

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-on-illegal-entry-of-people/4941338

[lakeland27]

 a lot of these waters were 'excised' from being Australian territorial waters, so there is no illegality until you are taken on to Christmas island or somewhere else. until that point the answer is no.

[topsidesoul]

@poddster wrote:

But Donna they are unlawfully in the country regardless of what their refugee status is until they have been approved for refugee status and issued proper documentation. Till that time they are here illegally.

---

The Australian Human Rights Commission is the legal way in which Australia is bound to act on behalf of these refugees/ asylum seekers: What are Australia’s human rights obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees?

Australia has international obligations to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how or where they arrive and whether they arrive with or without a visa.

While asylum seekers and refugees are in Australian territory (or otherwise engage Australia's jurisdiction), the Australian Government has obligations under various international treaties to ensure that their human rights are respected and protected. These treaties include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). These rights include the right not to be arbitrarily detained.

As a party to the Refugee Convention, Australia has agreed to ensure that asylum seekers who meet the definition of a refugee are not sent back to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. This is known as the principle of non-refoulement.

Australia also has obligations not to return people who face a real risk of violation of certain human rights under the ICCPR, the CAT and the CRC, and not to send people to third countries where they would face a real risk of violation of their human rights under these instruments. These obligations also apply to people who have not been found to be refugees.

[topsidesoul]

---

@poddster wrote:

But Donna they are illegals until they have been classified a asylum seekers

And by far the majority of them are economic refugees at best, jumping cue before the people who have applied through proper legal channels

.

---

Most of them Ecomnomic....care to prove that with evidence?

Or is this opinion?

You know, statistics and the like.......or is repeating things you have heard  now  offically classed as 'evidence' now with a Liberal leader?

Wouldn't expect anything different from the same war criminals who profited from the Iraqi war and helped the Aussie wheat board when they bribed a mass murderer.

He look, they are throwing their kids in the sea!

[*elizabeths-mum*]

I understood (and am probably wrong) that ' illegals' were those who came into the country and made no attempt to legalize their status?

[**meep**]

It was the former Foreign Minister Bob Carr who said:

"They're not people fleeing persecution. They're coming from majority religious or ethnic groups in the countries they're fleeing, they're coming here as economic migrants," Senator Carr told Lateline on June 26, 2013.

Two days later in Indonesia, Senator Carr was asked what evidence he had to support that assertion.

"I would need to get that out of our, out of the Immigration Department, but as I've looked at data about recent vessels, it's just been, it's been 100 per cent, it's been 100 per cent," he said.

Kevin Rudd suggested a change to our  UN Convention on Refugees agreement "to fit current traffic"

Rudd has implied the government might call for the 62-year-old agreement to be modified to reflect current movements of displaced people.

This could make it easier for Australia to reject refugee applications from those it deems to be economic migrants rather than persons fleeing persecution or war.

‘…it was developed in and for a different era. Its focus is the resulting problems that have been identified since the late 1980s with the operation of the Convention in Western countries’.

‘The use by the boat people of people smugglers to circumvent the visa and border controls has prompted Australia to join other countries in openly questioning the operation and continuing viability of the Convention itself.’

ABC News

News.com.au

[carls*world]

Wonder how many here glanced over this line above without actualy reading it?

coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1,

[lakeland27]

as was said, morrison is saying this merely to sound tough. there's little else to use to distance it from the rudd plan which remains  largely in place. both plans bleep, but he doesn't want rudd to get the credit for 'slowing the boats for now'

[**meep**]

I think Rudd's plan was good.  I think its better than TPV.

[lakeland27]

---

@**meep** wrote:

I think Rudd's plan was good.  I think its better than TPV.

---

its odd isn't it ? i dislike both plans