If we are going back in time ...the asylum seekers who came here by plane and were later found not to be genuine refugees could be said to be illegals ?

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

Sorry Allie, but the 'and others' kind of reads to me as though the asylum seekers are illegals 'as well' .

I actually thought that when I read it earlier.I know that you wouldn't mean it to read that way though 

---

When brackets are used, the original noun (asylum seekers) and the noun which is inside the brackets (others who are illegal) both share the verb which follows---have been flying.   These nouns have nothing to do with each other.    End of English lesson.

Most illegals come by plane. Overstay their visas and just disappear. So nothing new.

These are the words of purplecarrottop  ^^^     These are the people who I was referring to.  We are told that there are 50,000 others who are illegal in Australia at any one time.

And thank you Iza for your pleasant way of criticising.

Most illegals come by plane. Overstay their visas and just disappear. So nothing new.

These are the words of purplecarrottop  ^^^     These are the people who I was referring to.  We are told that there are 50,000 others who are illegal in Australia at any one time.

But you posted before PCT so in fact weren't refering to her post at all?

---

@twinkles**stars wrote:

Most illegals come by plane. Overstay their visas and just disappear. So nothing new.

 

These are the words of purplecarrottop  ^^^     These are the people who I was referring to.  We are told that there are 50,000 others who are illegal in Australia at any one time.

 

 

But you posted before PCT so in fact weren't refering to her post at all?

---

No, I didn't say I was referring to her post, I said I was referring to people who are illegal and have been flying in for years.

no worries Allie.Thanks for the English lesson.Not that it matters though while we are discussing this aspect of things.

I may have added the word/s ''actually or  'in actual fact' within the brackets myself or just written asylum seekers and illegals without using brackets ? .I think we get used to seeing Asylum seekers incorrectly referred to as illegals and I know (going by your posts) that you can appreciate how some feel about that .

and sometimes us humans simply type the wrong words 

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

If we are going back in time ...the asylum seekers who came here by plane and were later found not to be genuine refugees could be said to be illegals ?

---

I think they would be, and they are either sent straight back, or they clog up the court system with appeals.  Same as those who arrive on boats.

refugee noun

• a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster:tens of thousands of refugees fled their homes [as modifier]:a refugee camp
   
   
  asylum seeker noun

  a person who has left their home country as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another:only asylum seekers who are granted refugee status are allowed to work in the country
   

---

@twinkles**stars wrote:

refugee noun

• a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster:tens of thousands of refugees fled their homes [as modifier]:a refugee camp
   
   
  asylum seeker noun

  a person who has left their home country as a political refugee and is seeking asylum in another:only asylum seekers who are granted refugee status are allowed to work in the country
   

---

Why are you telling me stuff I already know?

Tell it to others here who don't know.

People who come here on visas and overstay are here illegally and are sent back when detected.

People who come here seeking asylum must submit to a questioning and a  background check to establish if their claim is true.

Those whose claims are found to be false are sent back. but only if the country the people come from will allow them back (some don't).

What do we do with the people awiating a decision? Currently we lock them up in detention camps. For rather long times.

A large proportion  (I think it is the majority of them?) of boat people who claim asylum here are eventually accepted as genuine refugees and granted asylum.

This being the case, wouldn't it be better all round to just allow them to live in the community until their claim is established one way or the other?

Oh, but it might take years, during which time said refugee claimant has learnt English, got a job, bought a house (well, a mortgage, anyway) and begun to raise a family.

it's inhumane to lock people up for any long time. Allowing free residence in the community has its problems.

I am going to come down on the side of criticising the hell out of the govt for taking such a bloody long time to establish the bona fides of the refugee claimants.