Australia in court over asylum cases

[webfact]

Australia faces asylum court challenges

(BBC) The Australian government is facing two challenges in court on Tuesday over its policies towards asylum seekers.

The High Court is hearing the case of 157 asylum seekers who set off from India by boat. Their lawyers will argue they were illegally detained aboard an Australian customs ship for a month.

A federal court will hear the case of a boy born in Brisbane to asylum seekers.

His lawyers argue that the boy should be given permanent protection - something the government has ruled out.

Australia takes a tough line on asylum seekers who arrive by boat. They are held in offshore processing camps and, if found to be refugees, will be resettled in Papua New Guinea or Cambodia.

In recent months Australian ships have also intercepted boats at sea.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29609351


-- BBC 2014-10-14

[klauskunkel]

His lawyers argue that the boy should be given permanent protection

Protection? Permanently? From who or what? Is that an Australian legal term?

I do not understand this...can anybody enlighten my ignorance?

[Chris Lawrence]

His lawyers argue that the boy should be given permanent protection

Protection? Permanently? From who or what? Is that an Australian legal term?

I do not understand this...can anybody enlighten my ignorance?

Protection of the State. This begins the process of permanent residencey.

[soalbundy]

His lawyers argue that the boy should be given permanent protection

Protection? Permanently? From who or what? Is that an Australian legal term?

I do not understand this...can anybody enlighten my ignorance?

Protection of the State. This begins the process of permanent residencey.

and then of course his parents will be given permanent residency and there will be a few more Indians born on Australian soil, it will end up like England.

[simple1]

His lawyers argue that the boy should be given permanent protection

Protection? Permanently? From who or what? Is that an Australian legal term?

I do not understand this...can anybody enlighten my ignorance?

Protection of the State. This begins the process of permanent residencey.

and then of course his parents will be given permanent residency and there will be a few more Indians born on Australian soil, it will end up like England.

Even worse news for someone like you...

The case is being made on behalf of 11-month-old Ferouz, a Rohingya boy who was born in a Brisbane hospital and has been kept in an immigration detention facility in Darwin.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/court-case-to-decide-fate-of-100-children-of-asylum-seekers-20141013-115bnw.html

[Scott]

If he was born in Australia, isn't he an Australian citizen?

Many of the Rohingyas are stateless.

[cookee68]

His lawyers argue that the boy should be given permanent protection

Protection? Permanently? From who or what? Is that an Australian legal term?

I do not understand this...can anybody enlighten my ignorance?

Protection of the State. This begins the process of permanent residencey.

why, his parents are both indian so what difference does that make, he has no rights of protection just because you are born in that country, if 2 farang gave birth to a child in Thailand, it is registered with the british embassy, that child does not have any thai rights or protection

Edited October 14, 2014 by cookee68

[cookee68]

His lawyers argue that the boy should be given permanent protection

Protection? Permanently? From who or what? Is that an Australian legal term?

I do not understand this...can anybody enlighten my ignorance?

Protection of the State. This begins the process of permanent residencey.

and then of course his parents will be given permanent residency and there will be a few more Indians born on Australian soil, it will end up like England.

that's how it works in a civilised country, unfortunately.

[Chris Lawrence]

Protection? Permanently? From who or what? Is that an Australian legal term?

I do not understand this...can anybody enlighten my ignorance?

Protection of the State. This begins the process of permanent residencey.

and then of course his parents will be given permanent residency and there will be a few more Indians born on Australian soil, it will end up like England.

Even worse news for someone like you...

The case is being made on behalf of 11-month-old Ferouz, a Rohingya boy who was born in a Brisbane hospital and has been kept in an immigration detention facility in Darwin.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/court-case-to-decide-fate-of-100-children-of-asylum-seekers-20141013-115bnw.html

"Maurice Blackburn, who are acting on a pro bono basis, are confident they will win the case, but say Immigration Minister Scott Morrison's recently proposed changes to the Migration Act could undermine the decision. "http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/court-case-to-decide-fate-of-100-children-of-asylum-seekers-20141013-115bnw.html

If your back is up against it, these are the guys you want in your corner. They are very aggressive and very good at what they do.

Looks like they will win.

"The Immigration Department will also face the High Court on Tuesday to defend the lawfulness of the Abbott government's decision to arbitrarily keep a boatload of 157 asylum seekers captive at sea for a month earlier this year."

Sounds as though the Oz Government are acting outside the law. They needed to change the laws before they acted.

[simple1]

If he was born in Australia, isn't he an Australian citizen?

Many of the Rohingyas are stateless.

The Oz Immigration Minister has commented publically Oz is no longer bound to be compliant to the UN Convention for Refugees. He would be using this case to set a presidence for children born to refugees / asylum seekers, whilst in detention, will not be granted citizenship, thereby setting the wheels in motion for the parent/s to claim Permanent Residency.

Oz has previously granted entry for a small number of Rohingya refugees.

[jacko45k]

How come the Chinese get to reject interferences in their internal affairs and sovereignty, yet Australia is only protecting its borders.

[Scott]

Do you happen to know if the Rohingya boy has nationality in another country? If he is stateless then it's going to be an interesting case to follow.

[simple1]

Do you happen to know if the Rohingya boy has nationality in another country? If he is stateless then it's going to be an interesting case to follow.

As you have highlighted Rohingya are stateless, whilst it's an assumption, I suggest he / parents do not have any officially recognised nationality ID.

[simple1]

How come the Chinese get to reject interferences in their internal affairs and sovereignty, yet Australia is only protecting its borders.

What country or organisation is interfering in Australian internal affairs / sovereignty? Internal affairs / sovereignty issues are governed only by Australian law and treaty obligations signed and ratified by Government. Laws and treaties can be amended or rescinded at any time.

[halloween]

If he was born in Australia, isn't he an Australian citizen?

Many of the Rohingyas are stateless.

No. Australia, like Thailand, recognises nationality according to that of the parents, and children born in oz of permanent residents do not automatically receive citizenship.

One side effect of this is it stops the problem the USA and other countries have of illegal immigrants giving birth and claiming residency to take care of the newborn citizen.

The boy born to stateless parents raises a complication best dealt with rapidly, as most illegal immigrants, having destroyed any documents, manage to delay deportation for more than 9 months.

[Scott]

Thanks for the responses. People destroying their papers do not become stateless. Many of the Rohingyas are from Burma and are not considered Burmese. Bangladesh also denies citizenship to those that they believe come from Burma.

I don't know Australian law in this regard, but some places have special provisions around citizenship to prevent statelessness.

It will be interesting to see how the Courts view this matter if this is a stateless child born in Australia. It might not even be an issue they address.

[Scott]

Just as an aside, I do know that in the US just because a child is a US citizen does not mean that the parents automatically get to remain. I read about a case where the parents were returned to their home country and were given the option of taking the child with them or having him placed in foster care.

If there were refugee issues to consider, then the parents might be allowed to remain, but it was a case of illegal economic migrants. I don't know what the outcome was.

[JockPieandBeans]

The problem that most Western Countries have. Is that Asylum Seekers and Refugees, although separate entities, will often be cited by both as a reason for their displacement.

The UN definition of a refugee is

"owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country or return there because there is a fear of persecution..."

Refugees should seek refuge in the nearest " Safe Country "

To apply the legally defined definitions of Asylum Seekers / Refugees, there are actually very few people who can travel to Australia and places like the UK and claim Asylum / Refugee status.

http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=153

[samran]

How come the Chinese get to reject interferences in their internal affairs and sovereignty, yet Australia is only protecting its borders.

High Court of Australia. The last word gives you a clue as to who is involved here.

Edited October 15, 2014 by samran

[samran]

Do you happen to know if the Rohingya boy has nationality in another country? If he is stateless then it's going to be an interesting case to follow.

I stand to be corrected, but children who are otherwise stateless, if born on oz soil, get automatic australian citizenship.

[simple1]

The problem that most Western Countries have. Is that Asylum Seekers and Refugees, although separate entities, will often be cited by both as a reason for their displacement.

The UN definition of a refugee is

"owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country or return there because there is a fear of persecution..."

Refugees should seek refuge in the nearest " Safe Country "

To apply the legally defined definitions of Asylum Seekers / Refugees, there are actually very few people who can travel to Australia and places like the UK and claim Asylum / Refugee status.

http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=153

To stay on topic, what 'safe countries' defined by UN protocols are accessible to the Rohingya in the Asian region; answer? None

[ABCer]

The more I think, the more I believe that in our days it does not pay for a country to be called 'civilized'. Nowadays it may be a great disadvantage in many respects.

[ABCer]

An 'uncivilized' country makes convenient Laws and lives with them. Or ignores them and lives with customs. No challenges.

[JockPieandBeans]

The problem that most Western Countries have. Is that Asylum Seekers and Refugees, although separate entities, will often be cited by both as a reason for their displacement.

The UN definition of a refugee is

"owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country or return there because there is a fear of persecution..."

Refugees should seek refuge in the nearest " Safe Country "

To apply the legally defined definitions of Asylum Seekers / Refugees, there are actually very few people who can travel to Australia and places like the UK and claim Asylum / Refugee status.

http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=153

To stay on topic, what 'safe countries' defined by UN protocols are accessible to the Rohingya in the Asian region; answer? None

I understand that Malaysia is pretty accommodating.

In Malaysia, the UN refugee agency has registered more than 35,000 Rohingya over the years, and believes there are more out there. While UNHCR provides documentation, and support for the most vulnerable among them, a lot of support comes from the community itself. Those who came earlier are now hosting relatives and fellow villagers who have arrived more recently.

http://www.unhcr.org/535e465a9.html

[Berkshire]

"Australia takes a tough line on asylum seekers who arrive by boat."

Do they? I'm pretty sure that if said asylum seekers came by boat but with several million Aus, the Aussie government wouldn't be taking such a hard line (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/768284-australia-fast-tracks-visas-for-super-rich/). Metaphorically speaking, of course.

[simple1]

To stay on topic, what 'safe countries' defined by UN protocols are accessible to the Rohingya in the Asian region; answer? None

I understand that Malaysia is pretty accommodating.

In Malaysia, the UN refugee agency has registered more than 35,000 Rohingya over the years, and believes there are more out there. While UNHCR provides documentation, and support for the most vulnerable among them, a lot of support comes from the community itself. Those who came earlier are now hosting relatives and fellow villagers who have arrived more recently.

http://www.unhcr.org/535e465a9.html

Post removed to enable response.

Malaysia has not ratified, nor is a signatory to UN Convention for Refugees. Malaysia is not a 'safe country", nor would meet any definition for being so, as was confirmed by an Australian High Court decision that ruled against Oz government attempts to remove refugees and send them to Malaysia. From the same report quoted below:

"The Rohingya have no access to legal work but are allowed to work in the informal sector. They tend to perform menial tasks that the local population shuns – such as in construction, on plantations and recycling scrap metal – and are vulnerable to exploitation because of their dire situation and uncertain legal status".

[samran]

To stay on topic, what 'safe countries' defined by UN protocols are accessible to the Rohingya in the Asian region; answer? None

I understand that Malaysia is pretty accommodating.

In Malaysia, the UN refugee agency has registered more than 35,000 Rohingya over the years, and believes there are more out there. While UNHCR provides documentation, and support for the most vulnerable among them, a lot of support comes from the community itself. Those who came earlier are now hosting relatives and fellow villagers who have arrived more recently.

http://www.unhcr.org/535e465a9.html

Post removed to enable response.

Malaysia has not ratified, nor is a signatory to UN Convention for Refugees. Malaysia is not a 'safe country", nor would meet any definition for being so, as was confirmed by an Australian High Court decision that ruled against Oz government attempts to remove refugees and send them to Malaysia. From the same report quoted below:

"The Rohingya have no access to legal work but are allowed to work in the informal sector. They tend to perform menial tasks that the local population shuns – such as in construction, on plantations and recycling scrap metal – and are vulnerable to exploitation because of their dire situation and uncertain legal status".

Ole Jihad Jock continuting to show little understanding of the Australian political context.

I remember Tony Abbott - Mr Conservative with a Capital 'C' - and now PM, words at the time:

Mr Abbott asked: ''What decent government would send boat people to a country where they could be exposed to caning? Malaysia is a friend of Australia, but their standards are not our standards - and it is very wrong of Australia to send people who have come into our care, however briefly, to a country whose standards are so different from ours''. Most of all, he said, ''it is a policy that just does not work''.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/malaysia-deal-not-on-abbott-20110913-1k7vd.html#ixzz3GByuskI0

[JockPieandBeans]

You both fell into the trap of not being able to distinguish between genuine Asylum Seekers / Refugees and chancers.

Genuine AS / Refugees will accept any safe haven, as pointed out above, the UN has set up a safe haven in Malaysia.

There is a marked difference, between genuine AS / Refugees and people who pay traffickers money to get them to a particular Country.

As pointed out above, the UN set the criteria for AS / Refugees, and as already pointed out above, there are very very few people who land on the shores of Australia, and other Countries that actually qualify for AS / Refugee status.

[Will27]

Asylum seeker baby Ferouz born in Australia denied refugee status by court

A JUDGE has thrown out a legal test case challenging the Federal Government’s decision to refuse a baby born

in Brisbane a protection visa because his parents were asylum seekers.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/asylum-seeker-baby-ferouz-born-in-australia-denied-refugee-status-by-court/story-fnii5v6y-1227091626528

[JockPieandBeans]

Asylum seeker baby Ferouz born in Australia denied refugee status by court

A JUDGE has thrown out a legal test case challenging the Federal Government’s decision to refuse a baby born

in Brisbane a protection visa because his parents were asylum seekers.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/asylum-seeker-baby-ferouz-born-in-australia-denied-refugee-status-by-court/story-fnii5v6y-1227091626528

A decision that will help Australia enormously in the future.

A crying shame that a baby was used as a pawn.

I liked this comment.

@shean Save your bleeding heart lefty propaganda for the less educated. Those of us who have travelled know that attitudes like yours are dangerous and lead to situations like the UK, France and other EU countries that now have major problems due to lax immigration.