Guest The Pom Queen Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 A federal court has ruled that a baby born in Australia to an asylum seeker is not entitled to a refugee visa. Ferouz Myuddin, who is 11 months old, was born in Brisbane when his mother was transferred to hospital from a refugee detention centre on Nauru. A judge backed the government's earlier ruling that the baby was an "unauthorised maritime arrival" so could not claim refugee status. Lawyers said he and 100 similar babies could now be sent to Nauru. The hearing comes as the federal government considers amending the Migration Act to retrospectively declare all babies born to asylum seekers who arrive by boat as unauthorised maritime arrivals, irrespective of whether they were born on Australian soil. If the amendments are passed, babies born to asylum seeker parents in Australia will have no right to apply for a permanent protection visa and should be transferred offshore. Ferouz's family are Muslim Rohingyas who said they fled to Myanmar (also known as Burma) to escape persecution. They landed on Australian territory in September last year and were taken to the off-shore processing centre in Nauru. Ferouz was born prematurely after his mother was taken to hospital in Brisbane because of concerns over her pregnancy. 'Ludicrous decision' Immigration Minister Scott Morrison had previously denied Ferouz a protection visa - which allows refugees to live permanently in Australia - on the basis that he had arrived on Australian territory by sea illegally. His parents then appealed to the Federal Court but after examining how the family had entered Australia, Judge Michael Jarrett backed the government view. He said the rule was intended to discourage people smugglers. Lawyer Murray Watt said he was advising the Myuddin family, currently staying in a detention centre in Darwin, to appeal. "This is a ludicrous decision given he was born here in Brisbane's Mater Hospital and he even has a Queensland birth certificate," ABC News quoted him as saying. He said his firm - which is representing the families of 100 babies born in Australia to asylum seekers who arrived by boat - would be seeking assurance from the government that the families will not be moved to Nauru until the appeal is heard. Mr Morrison welcomed the ruling, saying it has "always been the intention of successive governments that children born to illegal maritime arrivals, are taken to have the same status as their parents," ABC News reports. Ferouz's family are also applying for citizenship for him as a "stateless" migrant, saying that as a Rohingya he is denied citizenship in Myanmar. Children born in Australia to non-citizens or non-permanent residents can automatically get citizenship but only once they turn 10 and have spent most of their life in Australia. Australia has been clamping down on asylum seekers, particularly those who arrive by boat. Last month Australia signed a controversial deal with Cambodia to resettle refugees in the South East Asian nation. It also reintroduced temporary visas for refugees, which allow for the refugees to be sent home after a period of time if conditions in their home country are judged to have improved. Australia's High Court is also hearing a separate challenge over 157 asylum seekers from Sri Lanka who set out from southern India and were intercepted by Australia security in July. They were held on a customs ship at sea for a month, initially in secret, Their lawyers argued they were illegally detained, but government lawyers said the decision was made under existing laws. The court on Wednesday said it was reserving its decision, with a ruling not expected for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Obviously its not the baby's fault it is here without a visa but I dont see anything wrong with the decision. The parents dont have a visa yet so they just have to go back and wait their turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark 1234 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Closing all the loopholes IMO, and a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I thought the right of abode due to being born in the country was removed long ago. The idea being some would come purely to give birth giving their child rights. Could be wrong though. Not so much a matter of closing loop holes as acting on a case by case basis and not machine like administrative decisions but inclusive of humanity as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Pom Queen Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I thought the right of abode due to being born in the country was removed long ago. The idea being some would come purely to give birth giving their child rights. Could be wrong though. Not so much a matter of closing loop holes as acting on a case by case basis and not machine like administrative decisions but inclusive of humanity as well. I think it was 1986 when it stopped. Although if the child remains in Australia for the first ten years they automatically get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaggieMay24 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 No different than if the parents were tourists, or on a student visa, 457 visa, etc. One of the parents needs to be PR or an Australian citizen for the baby to be given citizenship. So I don't have any problem with the decision as it's based on the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 This wasn't about citizenship. It was about a protection visa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaggieMay24 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Sorry, I didn't read it closely enough. They talked about this briefly on the radio this morning and then opened the phone lines - most people were assuming the child would (and should) automatically be a citizen and I think I then subconsciously read the original post that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.