Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

[David48]

Also, since when did a refugee have to be poor? Plenty are, but also many are not.

Actually, I was surprised to learn that a Refugee is defined as ... "a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster."

Many of the refugees from Syria ending up in Jordanian camps or trying to cross into Italy are middle-class families looking for a safe place for their families and to restart their careers.

If you lived in Syria what would you do?

I wasn't making a comment, I was making a statement of fact.

In 'statement of facts' my personal opinion is irrelevant.

.

.

[Scott]

Refugees don't generally plan to return home. Displaced people often do, depending on the reason for the displacement. Refugees usually can't return for one of the reasons set forth in the UN Conventions.

[simple1]

Also, since when did a refugee have to be poor? Plenty are, but also many are not.

Actually, I was surprised to learn that a Refugee is defined as ... "a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster."

Many of the refugees from Syria ending up in Jordanian camps or trying to cross into Italy are middle-class families looking for a safe place for their families and to restart their careers.

If you lived in Syria what would you do?

As we are talking about Australia it is worth noting that the government supported the use of force against Assad due to his use of chemical weapons, at the same time the government stated it would not accept any Syrian refugees/asylum seekers

[David48]

...

It is important to screen people to make sure they are genuine refugees. Those that are need to be afforded the protection of a foreign gov't. Those that aren't, should probably be returned to their home country as soon as it is possible and safe for them to do so.

So, when a person claiming to be a refugee arrives on our shores and has burnt their identity papers beforehand (for what ever reason*) how difficult does that make to prove their bona fides?

The Australian Government has recently returned many to Sri Lanka ...

The Australian Government has moved quickly to return Sri Lankans who arrived illegally by boat to Australia.

Seventy-three of 79 Sri Lankans who recently arrived illegally by boat have been sent back to Sri Lanka with the remaining six also due to be returned having been screened out of a protection assessment process.

This new, tougher policy implementation by the elected Abbott Government sends a strong message that if you arrive illegally by boat, you will be sent back to Sri Lanka

Australian High Commission in Sri Lanka

* yes, I have read where they have been told by the people smugglers to burn them.

[David48]

... at the same time the government stated it would not accept any Syrian refugees/asylum seekers

Australian Government quote ?

[samran]

Also, since when did a refugee have to be poor? Plenty are, but also many are not.

Actually, I was surprised to learn that a Refugee is defined as ... "a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster."

Many of the refugees from Syria ending up in Jordanian camps or trying to cross into Italy are middle-class families looking for a safe place for their families and to restart their careers.

If you lived in Syria what would you do?

Probably look for the nearest country where I had a snowflakes chance in hell that I'd have the option of permanent resettlement. But I'd only be wanting to do what was best for my family, and if a boat ride on balance seems to be the best of a bad bunch of choices, them so be it.

[simple1]

... at the same time the government stated it would not accept any Syrian refugees/asylum seekers

Australian Government quote ?

My error, looks like it was not a generalised policy, but specifically aimed at Syrians arriving by sea. I have just seen that 500 Syrian refugees have been permitted entry to Australia under the agreed annual intake with the UNHCR program of 13,500 refugees; URL below. Out of two million Syrian refugees the UNHCR has only be able to place 10,000 since the conflict started, so not surprising they are seeking other avenues.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/500-syrian-refugees-heading-to-australia/4998002

I see from your post that officials are still using the word "illegals" An article damning this practice by the SMH below.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/are-they-illegals-no-and-scott-morrison-should-know-better-20131022-2vz6a.html

Edited October 28, 2013 by simple1

[Scott]

...

It is important to screen people to make sure they are genuine refugees. Those that are need to be afforded the protection of a foreign gov't. Those that aren't, should probably be returned to their home country as soon as it is possible and safe for them to do so.

So, when a person claiming to be a refugee arrives on our shores and has burnt their identity papers beforehand (for what ever reason*) how difficult does that make to prove their bona fides?

The Australian Government has recently returned many to Sri Lanka ...

The Australian Government has moved quickly to return Sri Lankans who arrived illegally by boat to Australia.

Seventy-three of 79 Sri Lankans who recently arrived illegally by boat have been sent back to Sri Lanka with the remaining six also due to be returned having been screened out of a protection assessment process.

This new, tougher policy implementation by the elected Abbott Government sends a strong message that if you arrive illegally by boat, you will be sent back to Sri Lanka

Australian High Commission in Sri Lanka

* yes, I have read where they have been told by the people smugglers to burn them.

There are a lot of reasons for people to burn their documentation, most of them are unnecessary, but it does prevent people from being repatriated immediately to their home country. Once someone has made unto a boat into Australian waters, there is a good chance they will not be returned without some sort of legal process.

Even if people do not have papers, they must have a claim to one of the convention reasons for being a (political) refugee. If they won't tell you who they are or where they are from, then it's pretty hard for anyone to consider them a genuine refugee. The people involved in determining refugee status have pretty good information about conditions in a country and the claim has to meet both an objective and a subjective criteria. Persecution is different and more extreme than discrimination. Millions of people face discrimination, but it does not amount to persecution.

As far as the Australian gov'ts claim that it wouldn't take any Syrians, that is questionable. I doubt very much that they would return them to Syria. I don't even know if it's possible to return them to Syria.

[simple1]

...

It is important to screen people to make sure they are genuine refugees. Those that are need to be afforded the protection of a foreign gov't. Those that aren't, should probably be returned to their home country as soon as it is possible and safe for them to do so.

So, when a person claiming to be a refugee arrives on our shores and has burnt their identity papers beforehand (for what ever reason*) how difficult does that make to prove their bona fides?

The Australian Government has recently returned many to Sri Lanka ...

The Australian Government has moved quickly to return Sri Lankans who arrived illegally by boat to Australia.

Seventy-three of 79 Sri Lankans who recently arrived illegally by boat have been sent back to Sri Lanka with the remaining six also due to be returned having been screened out of a protection assessment process.

This new, tougher policy implementation by the elected Abbott Government sends a strong message that if you arrive illegally by boat, you will be sent back to Sri Lanka

Australian High Commission in Sri Lanka

* yes, I have read where they have been told by the people smugglers to burn them.

There are a lot of reasons for people to burn their documentation, most of them are unnecessary, but it does prevent people from being repatriated immediately to their home country. Once someone has made unto a boat into Australian waters, there is a good chance they will not be returned without some sort of legal process.

Even if people do not have papers, they must have a claim to one of the convention reasons for being a (political) refugee. If they won't tell you who they are or where they are from, then it's pretty hard for anyone to consider them a genuine refugee. The people involved in determining refugee status have pretty good information about conditions in a country and the claim has to meet both an objective and a subjective criteria. Persecution is different and more extreme than discrimination. Millions of people face discrimination, but it does not amount to persecution.

As far as the Australian gov'ts claim that it wouldn't take any Syrians, that is questionable. I doubt very much that they would return them to Syria. I don't even know if it's possible to return them to Syria.

Unless the new Abbott government has changed policy, any Syrians arriving by boat would eventually be shipped offshore for detainment & processing, but never to be permitted entry to Australia.

Given your interest in asylum seeker/refugee matters you may be interested to note that the new Australian Immigration Minister has issued a directive that asylum seekers who arrive by boat are now to be known as ''illegals''.

http://www.smh.com.a...1022-2vz6a.html

Edited October 28, 2013 by simple1

[Scott]

The gov't is setting themselves up for a problem. If they process someone (not just a Syrian) and they are found to be a genuine refugee, then they have an obligation to resettle them. They are getting into murky water if they don't.

[David48]

... at the same time the government stated it would not accept any Syrian refugees/asylum seekers

Australian Government quote ?

My error, looks like it was not a generalised policy, ..

Mate, you and I might disagree on some issues (this Refugee issue being one of them) and agree on others in different parts of the Forum.

Full credit to you for admitting the minor error ...

If I make a mistake ... and I've made my fair share ... ... I do try and correct it.

Well done ole' son.

.

[simple1]

The gov't is setting themselves up for a problem. If they process someone (not just a Syrian) and they are found to be a genuine refugee, then they have an obligation to resettle them. They are getting into murky water if they don't.

The Australian government has effectively outsourced boat arrivals detention & assessment to the PNG government. A component of the agreement is that new arrivals by sea will never be admitted to Australia even if they have been positively vetted. The PNG government, after positive vetting, has agreed for them to be released from detention and stay in PNG. Due to the general level of poor living conditions, violence within PNG and contravening UN Refugee Conventions the policy is not acceptable to UNHCR.

I understand that Australia is the only country worldwide that has a policy of offshore processing for boat people. It is not clear to me why Australia has a different policy for arrivals by air, who then declare themselves as asylum seekers/refugees, be permitted to be processed within Australia.

Edited October 29, 2013 by simple1

[thaibeachlovers]

...

It is important to screen people to make sure they are genuine refugees. Those that are need to be afforded the protection of a foreign gov't. Those that aren't, should probably be returned to their home country as soon as it is possible and safe for them to do so.

So, when a person claiming to be a refugee arrives on our shores and has burnt their identity papers beforehand (for what ever reason*) how difficult does that make to prove their bona fides?

The Australian Government has recently returned many to Sri Lanka ...

The Australian Government has moved quickly to return Sri Lankans who arrived illegally by boat to Australia.

Seventy-three of 79 Sri Lankans who recently arrived illegally by boat have been sent back to Sri Lanka with the remaining six also due to be returned having been screened out of a protection assessment process.

This new, tougher policy implementation by the elected Abbott Government sends a strong message that if you arrive illegally by boat, you will be sent back to Sri Lanka

Australian High Commission in Sri Lanka

* yes, I have read where they have been told by the people smugglers to burn them.

Where a person turns up without any documentation at all, without a viable reason, they should be assumed to be an economic migrant and deported back to their home country. If they refuse to identify their country of origin, they should be detained till they admit where they came from.

[canman]

The gov't is setting themselves up for a problem. If they process someone (not just a Syrian) and they are found to be a genuine refugee, then they have an obligation to resettle them. They are getting into murky water if they don't.

The Australian government has effectively outsourced boat arrivals detention & assessment to the PNG government. A component of the agreement is that new arrivals by sea will never be admitted to Australia even if they have been positively vetted. The PNG government, after positive vetting, has agreed for them to be released from detention and stay in PNG. Due to the general level of poor living conditions, violence within PNG and contravening UN Refugee Conventions the policy is not acceptable to UNHCR.

I understand that Australia is the only country worldwide that has a policy of offshore processing for boat people. It is not clear to me why Australia has a different policy for arrivals by air, who then declare themselves as asylum seekers/refugees, be permitted to be processed within Australia.

I think it's quite simple; many of those who attempt to arrive by boat never make it. Many of the boats sink with great loss of life. Discourage the boat arrivals and you save lives.

[thaibeachlovers]

The gov't is setting themselves up for a problem. If they process someone (not just a Syrian) and they are found to be a genuine refugee, then they have an obligation to resettle them. They are getting into murky water if they don't.

The Australian government has effectively outsourced boat arrivals detention & assessment to the PNG government. A component of the agreement is that new arrivals by sea will never be admitted to Australia even if they have been positively vetted. The PNG government, after positive vetting, has agreed for them to be released from detention and stay in PNG. Due to the general level of poor living conditions, violence within PNG and contravening UN Refugee Conventions the policy is not acceptable to UNHCR.

I understand that Australia is the only country worldwide that has a policy of offshore processing for boat people. It is not clear to me why Australia has a different policy for arrivals by air, who then declare themselves as asylum seekers/refugees, be permitted to be processed within Australia.

I think it's quite simple; many of those who attempt to arrive by boat never make it. Many of the boats sink with great loss of life. Discourage the boat arrivals and you save lives.

You are correct, but the libs don't get it. With 17 MILLION refugees out there, there is no way they can all go to Oz legally, so boat arrivals must be stopped to save people from drowning.

[simple1]

The gov't is setting themselves up for a problem. If they process someone (not just a Syrian) and they are found to be a genuine refugee, then they have an obligation to resettle them. They are getting into murky water if they don't.

The Australian government has effectively outsourced boat arrivals detention & assessment to the PNG government. A component of the agreement is that new arrivals by sea will never be admitted to Australia even if they have been positively vetted. The PNG government, after positive vetting, has agreed for them to be released from detention and stay in PNG. Due to the general level of poor living conditions, violence within PNG and contravening UN Refugee Conventions the policy is not acceptable to UNHCR.

I understand that Australia is the only country worldwide that has a policy of offshore processing for boat people. It is not clear to me why Australia has a different policy for arrivals by air, who then declare themselves as asylum seekers/refugees, be permitted to be processed within Australia.

I think it's quite simple; many of those who attempt to arrive by boat never make it. Many of the boats sink with great loss of life. Discourage the boat arrivals and you save lives.

Yes I understand this policy, but at the same time Australia has made it very clear that it does not want any arrivals other than those previously postively vetted by UNHCR and not exceeding the current annual intake of 13,500 people. Immigration is making policy exception for those arriving by air, often with false documentation

[simple1]

...

It is important to screen people to make sure they are genuine refugees. Those that are need to be afforded the protection of a foreign gov't. Those that aren't, should probably be returned to their home country as soon as it is possible and safe for them to do so.

So, when a person claiming to be a refugee arrives on our shores and has burnt their identity papers beforehand (for what ever reason*) how difficult does that make to prove their bona fides?

The Australian Government has recently returned many to Sri Lanka ...

The Australian Government has moved quickly to return Sri Lankans who arrived illegally by boat to Australia.

Seventy-three of 79 Sri Lankans who recently arrived illegally by boat have been sent back to Sri Lanka with the remaining six also due to be returned having been screened out of a protection assessment process.

This new, tougher policy implementation by the elected Abbott Government sends a strong message that if you arrive illegally by boat, you will be sent back to Sri Lanka

Australian High Commission in Sri Lanka

* yes, I have read where they have been told by the people smugglers to burn them.

Where a person turns up without any documentation at all, without a viable reason, they should be assumed to be an economic migrant and deported back to their home country. If they refuse to identify their country of origin, they should be detained till they admit where they came from.

OK so whats happens to those identified as economic refugees and their home country refuses them re-entry e.g. Iran

Edited October 29, 2013 by simple1

[Scott]

There might be some legal reasons why boat arrivals are treated differently than arrivals by air. In the US, once they put their feet on US soil, it's a whole different ball game. I don't know if Australia has any of the same laws.

Arriving with/without documentation should make no difference in processing. A lot of genuine (political) refugees will try to bring documentation to support their claim -- prison release documents, order to appear before officials, etc., etc.. People do get robbed and documents do get destroyed. That should not necessarily influence the outcome. People must, however, cooperate. You are not considered a refugee until you have been screened, so until that time your status is whatever the country decides it should be and that could be anything from an asylum seeker to an illegal alien.

Most certainly boat journeys should be discouraged.

[simple1]

There might be some legal reasons why boat arrivals are treated differently than arrivals by air. In the US, once they put their feet on US soil, it's a whole different ball game. I don't know if Australia has any of the same laws.

Arriving with/without documentation should make no difference in processing. A lot of genuine (political) refugees will try to bring documentation to support their claim -- prison release documents, order to appear before officials, etc., etc.. People do get robbed and documents do get destroyed. That should not necessarily influence the outcome. People must, however, cooperate. You are not considered a refugee until you have been screened, so until that time your status is whatever the country decides it should be and that could be anything from an asylum seeker to an illegal alien.

Most certainly boat journeys should be discouraged.

In addition to the Australian territory of Ashmore, Cartier, Christmas and Cocos islands on May 16, 2013 the Australian government passed an Act that defined those arriving by sea on the Australian mainland as an exclusion zone for those claiming asylum seekers/refugee status; the first time a Western government has enacted such legislation.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/mainland-excised-from-australias-migration-zone-20130516-2joee.html

[thaibeachlovers]

...

It is important to screen people to make sure they are genuine refugees. Those that are need to be afforded the protection of a foreign gov't. Those that aren't, should probably be returned to their home country as soon as it is possible and safe for them to do so.

So, when a person claiming to be a refugee arrives on our shores and has burnt their identity papers beforehand (for what ever reason*) how difficult does that make to prove their bona fides?

The Australian Government has recently returned many to Sri Lanka ...

The Australian Government has moved quickly to return Sri Lankans who arrived illegally by boat to Australia.

Seventy-three of 79 Sri Lankans who recently arrived illegally by boat have been sent back to Sri Lanka with the remaining six also due to be returned having been screened out of a protection assessment process.

This new, tougher policy implementation by the elected Abbott Government sends a strong message that if you arrive illegally by boat, you will be sent back to Sri Lanka

Australian High Commission in Sri Lanka

* yes, I have read where they have been told by the people smugglers to burn them.

Where a person turns up without any documentation at all, without a viable reason, they should be assumed to be an economic migrant and deported back to their home country. If they refuse to identify their country of origin, they should be detained till they admit where they came from.

OK so whats happens to those identified as economic refugees and their home country refuses them re-entry e.g. Iran

Then they must be punished as an example to stop others following as they surely would if the first ones succeed in gaining residency. The current policy of sending them to PNG should be sufficient to act as a deterent.

[Will27]

... at the same time the government stated it would not accept any Syrian refugees/asylum seekers

Australian Government quote ?

My error, looks like it was not a generalised policy, but specifically aimed at Syrians arriving by sea. I have just seen that 500 Syrian refugees have been permitted entry to Australia under the agreed annual intake with the UNHCR program of 13,500 refugees; URL below. Out of two million Syrian refugees the UNHCR has only be able to place 10,000 since the conflict started, so not surprising they are seeking other avenues.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/500-syrian-refugees-heading-to-australia/4998002

I see from your post that officials are still using the word "illegals" An article damning this practice by the SMH below.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/are-they-illegals-no-and-scott-morrison-should-know-better-20131022-2vz6a.html

The article you refer to in the SMH is was written by Jane McAdam who founded the Andrew and Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. I'd suggest she has a vested interest.

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention also refers to arrivals as "Illegals". Australia's Immigration laws also

refer to people without visa's as unlawful.

People who arrive here by boat without visa's arrive here illegally.

They're illegal maritime arrivals who are claiming asylum. And again,

they're detainees, not clients.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Will27

[Will27]

The gov't is setting themselves up for a problem. If they process someone (not just a Syrian) and they are found to be a genuine refugee, then they have an obligation to resettle them. They are getting into murky water if they don't.

The Australian government has effectively outsourced boat arrivals detention & assessment to the PNG government. A component of the agreement is that new arrivals by sea will never be admitted to Australia even if they have been positively vetted. The PNG government, after positive vetting, has agreed for them to be released from detention and stay in PNG. Due to the general level of poor living conditions, violence within PNG and contravening UN Refugee Conventions the policy is not acceptable to UNHCR.

I understand that Australia is the only country worldwide that has a policy of offshore processing for boat people. It is not clear to me why Australia has a different policy for arrivals by air, who then declare themselves as asylum seekers/refugees, be permitted to be processed within Australia.

I think the same rule should apply if you arrive by air with no or false papers.

The amount of boat arrivals compared to air arrivals continued to escalate.

From memory, the largest percentage of the air arrivals applying for asylum

are from Chinese students when the govt made it harder to obtain PR.

This also buys them more time in Australia while their application is being

processed. So the stats are misleading.

[Scott]

For people who are deemed not to be refugees should be returned to their home country. There are pretty stringent UN conventions about their return and the home country would be completely out of order to deny them entry.

There are situations and groups where establishing the home country is difficult. The Rohyingas from Myanmar are a good example, the Burmese gov't does not consider them citizens and repatriating them can be a big hassle. I also remember working for the UN and we had a "Vietnamese" refugee of Chinese descent and he was deemed not to be a refugee but Vietnam refused to allow him to return because they said he was actually Chinese and that there was no record of him being a Vietnamese national. China said he was not a Chinese national.

[simple1]

... at the same time the government stated it would not accept any Syrian refugees/asylum seekers

Australian Government quote ?

My error, looks like it was not a generalised policy, but specifically aimed at Syrians arriving by sea. I have just seen that 500 Syrian refugees have been permitted entry to Australia under the agreed annual intake with the UNHCR program of 13,500 refugees; URL below. Out of two million Syrian refugees the UNHCR has only be able to place 10,000 since the conflict started, so not surprising they are seeking other avenues.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/500-syrian-refugees-heading-to-australia/4998002

I see from your post that officials are still using the word "illegals" An article damning this practice by the SMH below.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/are-they-illegals-no-and-scott-morrison-should-know-better-20131022-2vz6a.html

The article you refer to in the SMH is was written by Jane McAdam who founded the Andrew and Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. I'd suggest she has a vested interest.

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention also refers to arrivals as "Illegals". Australia's Immigration laws also refer to people without visa's as unlawful.

People who arrive here by boat without visa's arrive here illegally. They're illegal maritime arrivals who are claiming asylum. And again,

they're detainees, not clients.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

Out of interest I reviewed Article 31 & the wording does not support Australia's position on the treatment of boat arrivals

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits states parties from imposing penalties on refugees who, when coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and can show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

This Article recognises that 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. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to do so if they are seeking asylum.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/who-conv.php

[Will27]

simple1, said:

Out of interest I reviewed Article 31 & the wording does not support Australia's position on the treatment of boat arrivals

Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits states parties from imposing penalties on refugees who, when coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and can show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

This Article recognises that 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. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to do so if they are seeking asylum.

http://www.refugeeco.../f/who-conv.php

Will27 said:

Your post is completely misleading.

Yes, the highlighted part is from Article 31 so no problems there.

Note, it states their illegal entry.

The second paragraph is not in Article 31 and is an interpretation from the Refugee Council Of Australia.

To quote " incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal". I'm sure they

make a lot of this up. Again, they're hardly objective.

So article 31 states that they have entered illegally so therefore I cannot see why they can't be referred to as "Illegal Arrivals".

[Scott]

Depending on where you are, using the word 'illegal' implies there has been some legal action. In most places, until some authority says so, you are simply an undocumented person.

[Will27]

Depending on where you are, using the word 'illegal' implies there has been some legal action. In most places, until some authority says so, you are simply an undocumented person.

Again, the wording is subjective but my take on "illegal" is something against or prohibited by law.

They have illegally entered Australia, by that there is no doubt IMO.

Under the Migration Act, they're considered unlawful non-citizens, fact.

[David48]

This Article recognises that 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. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to do so if they are seeking asylum.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/who-conv.php

You're referencing the Australian Refugee Councils interpretation of the Act ... not the Act itself?

Not say there wrong ... but it is their interpretation.

.

[Scott]

I am not going to get into the fray, or argue the status. My point is simply that someone has to determine that they are illegal. If an Australian citizen is out sailing and caught in a storm and ends up in the sea and is rescued by one of these boat loads of people, he would be undocumented until he could show he was an Australian citizen.

There was a case of an Australian lady who was originally from the Philippines and was inadvertently returned to the Philippines even though she was an Australian citizen.

In many countries, they are undocumented arrivals. If they claim asylum, then they are an asylum seeker. If they don't claim asylum, then they are an illegal immigrant.

[Will27]

This Article recognises that 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. As such, what otherwise be considered illegal actions (eg. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as such if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a lawful right to do so if they are seeking asylum.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/who-conv.php

You're referencing the Australian Refugee Councils interpretation of the Act ... not the Act itself?

Not say there wrong ... but it is their interpretation.

.

That's why I said it was misleading in post 356 David48. And by clumping both the Act and article by ARC together, on first

glance it can look as if it was quoted just from the Act.