Psyber wrote:The core issue in the debate about the illegality or not of those entering Oz by boat rather than by plane.
http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-me ... y-enterin/Mary Crock, a law professor at Sydney University and a specialist in immigration and refugee law, told PolitiFact:
"The bottom line in the refugee convention is that it prohibits signatory states from imposing penalties on refugees for their illegal entry to the country. Refugees can’t be called illegal because the presumption has to be that they could be legitimate refugees."
The problem is with language and it’s touched on in Crock’s own reference to "illegal entry". Section 14 of Australia’s Migration Act specifies that "a non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen [ie, a non-citizen holding an appropriate visa] is an unlawful non-citizen".
Section 228B spells out that "a non-citizen seeking protection or asylum" but without a valid visa has "no lawful right to come to Australia", regardless of Australia’s protection obligations. Prior to 1994, an unlawful non-citizen was known in law as an "illegal entrant".
And article 31 of the UN convention says a refugee who enters a country without authorisation does so illegally, although nations that have signed the convention "shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence".
Article 31 says nothing of the sort!!
Article 31: Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge
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.
Article 31 also prohibits states parties from restricting the freedom of movement of refugees who arrive without authorisation, with the exception of restrictions necessary for regularising their status. Furthermore, such restrictions should be applied only until their status in the country is regularised or they obtain admission into another country.
The above comes straight from the United Nations website. What it is saying that, if you were normally coming into a country without a valid visa, it would be illegal. For instance, I am going to China next month. It is illegal for me to enter there without a valid visa.
However, as Article 31 clearly states, if someone is seeking asylum IT IS NOT ILLEGAL for them to arrive without a visa, or in fact, without any documentation.
Cheers
