Australia Day.

Well, they still don't have visas do they?
It might not be illegal, but they're still branded as unauthorized personnel. :/

I totally agree with you.
Public forums with pig headed 'Australians' think on Australia day they have the right to  be racist a**holes!

I hate it. I love Australia and I was born here but my mother is chinese and my father is english. I have travelled alot and the reason why people move to Australia is for a better life and they all LOVE Australia.

I think Australia day should just be cancelled. All it is Racism Day!

thats not quite how it works, if you are a 'genuine' asylum seeker and they can prove it then you get a vise, because there is a treaty that australia is apart of which means we offer asylum to genuine asylum seekers.

Some countries won't even process visas for a holiday, I think when people are desperate for a  better life they would risk anything and come on things like boats. If anything it's horrible and sad.

"An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their own country and applies to the government of another country for protection as a refugee."

Just because they are still trying to get paperwork together, doesn't make them illegal if they fall in the definition of asylum seeker.

More FAQ's here:
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/asylum_seekers.html

It links to relevant legislation so you can research how 'illegal' these people apparently are and our duties as a country to protect them.

Sorry guys, I was always under the impression that it worked a different way!
I thought if you didn't have the correct legal documents, that you were illegal, no matter what status you came under.
But apparently not!

Wait a minute.
Looking more into this, even though these people might not be technically illegal, their entrance into the country/known territory is.

"1.        The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence." ~ Article 31, Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees/Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

So, when they actually recieve their visa, that is when they are considered legal.
Does that mean, technically, they are entering a country illegally, however, when the state is provided with proof of reason for their presence, and accepts them as a refugee, then they are no longer considered an illegal presence?

I stick by my opinion of quickening the visa process, but I don't think that it is completely wrong to call an asylum seeker unauthorized, or to an extent, even illegal (if you're not legal until you gain a visa, then what are you before hand?). It might be Australia's duty to allow them to be assessed and apply for a protection visa, and protect their rights, but without a visa, they still arrive illegally.

It seems a bit contradicting actually. It's perfectly legal to seek asylum under the appropriate circumstances, but when you arrive, you're automatically considered an illegal presence until proven a refugee?

Is there anything in the legislation that undermines this?

I think that's really what the debate (in our current government) is right now. Do we interpret the law to mean they are technically illegal but are granted assistance through the process to become legal refugees or are they're legal refugees by default due to asylum seeker status but this can be revoked later in the process if some other clause is breached?

But you're right, if we're not treating them as asylum seekers, how can they be also illegal too?

The law is very ambiguous in general. There is no right or wrong answer to anything (ie. A rapist that confesses can still find some argument to possibly lower their sentence and has the right to do so; we never just go 'Yup, they confessed. Just lock them up' even if it seems like maximum penalty under the current law is the 'right' answer).

Lawmakers and enforcers also need more than a paragraph of a section of an Act to find the 'best argument'. So really, we don't have enough info in your post to really state a reasonable response to your question.

Personally, as a vegan that aims to reduce suffering overall, I think Australia needs to enforce the relevant treaties and our own laws need to assist with this to defend human rights. We should always strive to improve on this. But it's a very complex issue, it's not as simple as 'being nice to those in need' unfortunately.

Australia Day - it's whatever you want it to be.  

Re Asylum Seeker issue, for those interested, you might want to read the below thread which covers this issue in detail. (I've also changed my position on a few contentions since then).

http://www.unleashed.org.au/community/forum/topic.php?t=3992


Yep, totally agree with you there. Doesn't make the argument right, but the best way to shut down a discussion is to accuse the other party of a label. Any chance of either party to properly listen and explore points put forward in their contentions is wiped clean when you throw in things like racist or bogan. Walls go up, sides become entrenched - which is so damn /frustrating/, because the arguments ends up going in circles and doesn't progress to being (if possible) resolved or being better understood. And calling someone something adds nothing to the points of contention...

Yes, I'm definitely guilty of doing this in the past. In the last year or so I've realised the error of my ways, and opted out from labelling others as racist, among things. It's a term that arguably may have had relevance during a time when social Darwinism invited prejudice on the basis of 'race'. These days I've been seeing it used as a blanket term for all kinds of perceived prejudice based on someone's culture, nationality, or geographical origin, almost akin to morally guilt-tripping the opposing party for not agreeing with the accusing party's views.

The whole point is we should all be grateful to call Australia home but being proud? Like Neen said her ancestors helped build Australian society. She did not. So how about not being so patriotic and just be grateful rather than arrogant.