Illegal Immigrants are just That- Illegal.
Which part of the word “illegal” do you not understand? Just as an assistance to comprehension here is the definition from Wikipedia:-
The terms irregular immigration and illegal immigration refer to the migration of foreign citizens into a country in circumstances where such people do not meet the legal requirements for immigrating in that country, that is, when they are violating the immigration laws of that jurisdiction.
It is officially called “illegal immigration” in the United States and by the European Union.International governmental and non-governmental organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and others use the term “irregular immigration”.”Unauthorized immigration” is another term which is occasionally used to refer to this form of migration. The term “undocumented immigration” is used as well, though it is considered less inclusive than “irregular immigration.”
Irregular immigration has numerous and complex causes, but in general, it consists in people from poor countries seeking better life opportunities in more developed countries, and includes forced migration and voluntary migration. Irregular immigration has impact on many political, economical, social and ethical issues. It is estimated that between 21.4 and 32.1 million (or 10%–15%) of the world’s total 214 million international immigrants fit this status.
The Federal Migration Act, which is the Act which administers migration to this wonderful country of Australia.
MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 14
Unlawful non-citizens
(1) A non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen is an unlawful non-citizen.
(2) To avoid doubt, a non-citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an
illegal 
entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen. Note the highlighting of the word”illegal”. Theirs, not my doing.
Here is a public posting which relates to the recent High Court Decision on the attempted processing in Malaysia.
Breaking News: High Court declares Malaysian “Solution” illegal
Just handed down at 2:15pm today: the High Court has declared the Malaysian “Solution” to be illegal in Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32.
I shall shamelessly reproduce the High Court’s summary of reasons available on their site — more detailed commentary (I hope) to follow [on which, see UPDATE below]:
Today the High Court held invalid the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’s declaration of Malaysia as a country to which asylum seekers who entered Australia at Christmas Island can be taken for processing of their asylum claims. After an expedited hearing before the Full Bench, the Court by majority made permanent the injunctions that had been granted earlier and restrained the Minister from taking to Malaysia two asylum seekers who arrived at Christmas Island, as part of a larger group, less than four weeks ago.
The Court also decided that an unaccompanied asylum seeker who is under 18 years of age may not lawfully be taken from Australia without the Minister’s written consent under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 (Cth). The Court granted an injunction restraining the Minister from removing the second plaintiff, an Afghan citizen aged 16, from Australia without that consent.
The Court held that, under s 198A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Minister cannot validly declare a country (as a country to which asylum seekers can be taken for processing) unless that country is legally bound to meet three criteria. The country must be legally bound by international law or its own domestic law to: provide access for asylum seekers to effective procedures for assessing their need for protection; provide protection for asylum seekers pending determination of their refugee status; and provide protection for persons given refugee status pending their voluntary return to their country of origin or their resettlement in another country. In addition to these criteria, the Migration Act requires that the country meet certain human rights standards in providing that protection.
The Court also held that the Minister has no other power under the Migration Act to remove from Australia asylum seekers whose claims for protection have not been determined. They can only be taken to a country validly declared under s 198A to be a country that provides the access and the protections and meets the standards described above. The general powers of removal of “unlawful non-citizens” given by the Migration Act (in particular s 198) cannot be used when the Migration Act has made specific provision for the taking of asylum seekers who are offshore entry persons and whose claims have not been processed to another country, and has specified particular statutory criteria that the country of removal must meet.
On the facts which the parties had agreed, the Court held that Malaysia is not legally bound to provide the access and protections the Migration Act requires for a valid declaration. Malaysia is not a party to the Refugees Convention or its Protocol. The Arrangement which the Minister signed with the Malaysian Minister for Home Affairs on 25 July 2011 said expressly that it was not legally binding. The parties agreed that Malaysia is not legally bound to, and does not, recognise the status of refugee in its domestic law. They agreed that Malaysia does not itself undertake any activities related to the reception, registration, documentation or status determination of asylum seekers and refugees. Rather, the parties agreed, Malaysia permits the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) to undertake those activities in Malaysia and allows asylum seekers to remain in Malaysia while UNHCR does so.
The Court emphasised that, in deciding whether the Minister’s declaration of Malaysia was valid, it expressed no view about whether Malaysia in fact meets relevant human rights standards in dealing with asylum seekers or refugees or whether asylum seekers in that country are treated fairly or appropriately. The Court’s decision was based upon the criteria which the Minister must apply before he could make a declaration under s 198A.-End.
Now all this seems eminently fair and no-one can say that Australians are not fair. In fact we pride ourselves on giving everybody in society “a fair go, mate”. Also it would be fair to say that Australians know what it is to wait in a queue. Only a few days ago, we witnessed on our TV reporting, the huge queues waiting at sunrise for the latest Apple device, the I-Phone 4S. Not even the much expected I-Phone 5!
Australians wait in queues for trains, planes, football matches, art gallery exhibitions, rock concerts, and entry and exit to car parks. In peak traffic times on our Expressways( surely a misnomer), we wait ( queue) in bumper to bumper traffic as we slowly wend our weary ways to and from work. Until recently, when the big 4 Banks finally discovered customer service, we waited in queues to deposit and withdraw money, cash cheques, buy travellers cheques for our overseas holiday, arrange term deposits, and do all the other myriad of banking tasks.
But the queueist queue of all was, and still is, waiting for a response to a phone call to Telstra for assistance and support. Now that is a waiting game, and how familiar are we with ” all our operators are busy, your call has been placed in a queue, and will be answered by the first available operator. We thank you for your patience.” Note the use of the word”patience”. There is no possibility of queue jumping, you just wait your turn, and eventually you are rewarded by speaking to the unseen operator.
There is the nub of the whole sorry and sordid story of what is going on with our disastrous process related to illegal boat immigrants. On shore processing, offshore processing, processing in Nauru, the possibility of Malaysian processing squashed and quashed completely by the recent High Court decision.
So how can we fairly deal with the illegal boat people and the illegal boat operators? Some simple and effective methods follow:
- If an Illegal Immigrant enters the country illegally by swimming, boat voyage, parachuting from a hot air balloon, paragliding with prevailing winds, stowing away on an ocean liner, hiding in the cargo hold of a cargo plane, or in any other manner yet to be devised, he/she/they are immediatly repatriated by air to their country of origin in a Hercules. No fancy Qantas meal, no free cigarettes, no temporary visas, no court appeals, no TV interviews, and no deal for any future immigration . They have forfeited any rights to any sort of future visa. Do not even go to the end of the queue, there is no queue.
- Australia and Indonesia must agree that stopping the start of an illegal boat trip starts in Indonesia and therefore the Indonesian authorities must take effective action to close down the boat operators. Arrest and detain in Kerobokan prison all illegal boat operators or any person offering, soliciting for, or enticing or inducing boat passengers to pay for an illegal boat trip to Australia.
- With the full knowledge that there are always unscrupulous people who will attempt to evade the law, Australia must provide a disincentive for those who have been able to hire a boat passage, and are actually on the high seas. If they are in International waters then they know Australia is powerless to stop them. But just before they reach Australian waters, there is nothing wrong with us projecting a warning. A bit like the Monopoly Chance card-” Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.”
- On a Very Large Naval Vessel, erect a very large sign, which is illuminated at night, saying-” Do Not Proceed Any Further-Go Back Home!”
- Below is a suggested Very Large Naval Vessel.
Related Posts
-
Top Tips for Pumping Petrol
Posted on Apr 16, 2012
-
The Big Picture-Commsec Viewpoint-15/04/2012
Posted on Apr 14, 2012
-
ABC24, The Latest News-Again, and Again, and Yet Again.
Posted on Mar 4, 2012
-
Save Petrol-Free the Freeways
Posted on Jan 12, 2012
Tags
Share This
