Scott Morrison, Minister for Immigration - Image, www.news.com.au

Scott Morrison, Minister for Immigration – Image, www.news.com.au

Scott Morrison has indicated that he wants people seeking asylum here in Australia referred to as Illegal Maritime Arrivals and that they are referred to as detainees rather than clients of the department. Of course as expected, some talkback show hosts jumped in fawning admiration of the Immigration minister. One talkback show host here in Perth, on the drive program on one of the AM stations went to great lengths to sycophantically praise the Immigration minister for his “honesty” and his “ability to call it for what it is”. What an absolute farce that is!

Much has been written by advocates such as Julian Burnside and others as why the Morrison line is completely without foundation. The common theme of all the arguments raised is that it is not illegal under any laws that we have in this country for a person to seek asylum. The minister would seek to counter that by saying that it is the process that these people have followed in crossing borders that is illegal. The question that is asked of Morrison then goes to the 50,000 that come to this country annually, then illegally overstay their visas. Those 50,000 of course are predominantly from Anglo-Celtic countries and the US. Why are these people not referred to by Morrison as “Illegals”? Why is it only the arrivals by boat regarded as illegals?

Burnside and others make the point that it is not illegal to seek asylum. Never over the time of asylum seeking have any of these people been charged with an offence of any kind, none have been shown to have anything in their pasts that would make them a threat to national or societal security. Nor can they be charged for the mode and manner of their right to seek asylum – in reference to it being ‘illegal’. This is because a charge of that nature would not survive. One of the questions that has arisen since this particular part of the debate arose is the way that these people should be referred to in the press. For this I turned to the findings of the Australian Press Council. In March 2012 they released an advisory guideline that stated the following:

“The legal status of people who have entered Australia by boat without a visa is complex and potentially confusing. Their entry is not legally authorised but is not a criminal offence. The Australian Government usually refers to such entrants as “unauthorised boat arrivals” or “irregular maritime arrivals” but they are also “unlawful non-citizens” under the Migration Act.

Entrants by boat without a visa are entitled to seek asylum and, in practice, almost all of them do so. If the Government’s initial processing suggests they may have a valid case, they are classified as “asylum seekers” and allowed to stay in Australia while the claim is being finally determined. They remain “unlawful non-citizens” until their claim is approved (whereupon they get a permanent protection visa) or they receive a “bridging visa” pending finalisation of their claim. If their claim is rejected, they have not committed an offence but are liable to deportation.

Most entrants by boat without a visa do not seek to evade the authorities upon arrival. Instead, they seek to establish a legal right to stay as a refugee. Their position is very different from those people, including many who arrive with a short-term visa, who seek to remain permanently in the country on a clandestine basis (that is, “over-stayers”).

In these circumstances, great care must be taken to avoid describing people who arrived by boat without a visa in terms that are likely to be inaccurate or unfair in relation to at least some of them. This can arise, for example, if the terms can reasonably be interpreted as implying criminality or other serious misbehaviour on the part of all or many people who arrive in this manner.

Depending on the specific context, therefore, terms such as “illegal immigrants” or “illegals” may constitute a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice on these grounds. The risk of breach can usually be avoided by using a term such as “asylum seekers” although in some cases, of course, the context may require reference to their unlawful or unauthorised entry or their status as unlawful non-citizens pending determination of their claims (if they do not have bridging visas).”

Leaving aside all the arguments for and against the issue of the terminology one of the best comments that I have read in this regard was on Twitter and it said:

“Calling asylum seekers illegals is like calling someone fleeing a house fire across a neighbour’s lawn a trespasser”