That people are happy that 11 month old child is growing up in detention, frankly is staggering.

The Australian Citizen Act was changed in 1986 (August from memory) to prevent babies born in Australia to non resident parents from gaining automatic citizenship. Before this it was common for pregnant mothers from places such as Singapore, Malaysia and particularly Hong Kong to visit for several months and depart with a new born using it's, very recently issued, Australian passport.

Babies born in Australia now have the same status as their parents. If unlawful, so is the baby. If one parent has permanent residence the baby is automatically a citizen.

"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.

I'm thinking that if said asylum seekers had several million aust dollars they'd be flying to Aust first class rather than chance a leaky overcrowded boat

The Australian Citizen Act was changed in 1986 (August from memory) to prevent babies born in Australia to non resident parents from gaining automatic citizenship. Before this it was common for pregnant mothers from places such as Singapore, Malaysia and particularly Hong Kong to visit for several months and depart with a new born using it's, very recently issued, Australian passport.

Babies born in Australia now have the same status as their parents. If unlawful, so is the baby. If one parent has permanent residence the baby is automatically a citizen.

The ruling was based upon baby being declared "an unlawful maritime entry" and is now used to exclude the other 100+ children being held in offshore detention camps. I believe Australia is the only country in the world that uses off shore detention camps to exclude asylum seekers / refugees whilst processing claims. In any case those now held offshore, currently, will never be permitted to enter Australia, even if positively vetted.

It is interesting that those arriving by air & then immediately claiming asylum at border control (thousands annually) in many cases destroy their ID or travelling on false ID are not transferred to offshore detention camps. The ruling for baby will not apply to those who arrive by air & subsequently have a child born in Australia whilst awaiting processing. From the outside looking in the ruling announced yesterday is discriminatory.

The Australian Citizen Act was changed in 1986 (August from memory) to prevent babies born in Australia to non resident parents from gaining automatic citizenship. Before this it was common for pregnant mothers from places such as Singapore, Malaysia and particularly Hong Kong to visit for several months and depart with a new born using it's, very recently issued, Australian passport.

Babies born in Australia now have the same status as their parents. If unlawful, so is the baby. If one parent has permanent residence the baby is automatically a citizen.

The ruling was based upon baby being declared "an unlawful maritime entry" and is now used to exclude the other 100+ children being held in offshore detention camps. I believe Australia is the only country in the world that uses off shore detention camps to exclude asylum seekers / refugees whilst processing claims. In any case those now held offshore, currently, will never be permitted to enter Australia, even if positively vetted.

It is interesting that those arriving by air & then immediately claiming asylum at border control (thousands annually) in many cases destroy their ID or travelling on false ID are not transferred to offshore detention camps. The ruling for baby will not apply to those who arrive by air & subsequently have a child born in Australia whilst awaiting processing. From the outside looking in the ruling announced yesterday is discriminatory.

Thanks for that. I wasn't commenting on this specific case because I don't know the details.

It was to help clear up a few misconceptions others posting here have about citizenship.

"Unlawful Maritime Entry" is a new term for me, no doubt invented by the current Government.

Just a few comments on asylum seekers arriving by air:

Their major difference from boat arrivals is that these people have to possess both a valid passport and visa to board an aircraft. Advances in technology have made bogus passports much more difficult to use. The days of people handing boarding passes to another person in the departure lounge have been mostly eliminated by final P/P checks upon boarding. The persons correct identity is almost always known.

Even if a person disposes of a passport on the aircraft or in a toilet in the arrival area the passenger list still has their details. Customs generally do a sweep of toilets, etc. after every flight and do find passports thrown in the rubbish. In the past I have had to examine passports retrieved from aircraft toilet tanks. Not a pleasant task, although by the time they came to me they had been washed and placed in plastic bags.

People claiming asylum at an airport on arrival are generally held in a processing/detention centre on shore. People who enter legally and make claims at a later date, remain in the community until a decision is made.