Shane, my definition of "beating up" includes the stress and phycological damage being caused. The DoBUF are driving people mad. Yes it's in the media, do you refute it?
Back to the topic."Department to beat up Foreigners", you have been reading too much Australian media.
No, haven't taught a crim, came close to being on the opposite side more than once when younger, choose a different path. Unfortunately some of my friends at school didn't,
At what point do the rest of us say enough, we don't want this crap in our lives, you had your chance, either lock 'em up or kick 'em out. This is why people are increasingly moving to gated communities, avoid PT and living a more secluded lifestyle.
I'm personally not for one chance and your out, but there surely must be a points style system when at some point a person looses the right to live in our society whether they be deported or locked up depending on their nationality status and in some cases the first offence is their last chance to cause an offence, ie murder etc.
People are in immigration centers because they broke the law entering the country or while in the country, so yes its very much a jail. They stay there until their case and/or status is resolved. For those entering the country illegally, usually without documentation it involves repeated interviews from people of their own community to see if they are who they say they are and is their claim for asylum legal.
Easily, 'beating up' in no standard dictionary use of the words means what you think it means - if you're going to make up non standard meanings then discussion with you will always yield no progress.
Plenty of 10 pound poms & Kiwis & European in that boat.
Back you go - to a country where you have no family or contacts, no job, nor (for some) language. Sleep on the streets or more crime.
Where does this leave Dusty Martin. Born in OZ, in his 20s, and wins a Brownlow. BUT, Dad is a Kiwi and booted.
How does he ever become recognised by DoBUF as Australian?
According to them: Existing passport means nothing, Birth Cert means nothing, Aboriginality means nothing, has been known to hang out with bikies/baby-sitters. Go thru a "naturalisation" ceremony ? after $000s of fees - that would be a farce.
Its not only "one chance, you're out".
They've being trolling the crime lists for decades back , looking for any possibility of non-Aussie ness.
Picking up at the JAIL exit (or workplace 10 years on) because don't have a passport - the DoBUF is not the font of all knowledge but you have to prove them wrong.
Try proving a negative sometime, it's not easy. Ask any A&TSI without a registered birth, or a crazy lady with a Qld/German accent.
Not even "one chance", the DoBUF rules didn't even exist then, but the "law" says its OK to put in the boot, retrospective gone mad.
I have said many times, first and foremost there is ALWAYS the opportunity to behave, generally that does not depend on anyone aside from the VISA holder.
Dusty Martin is left exactly where he is, no need to feel too sorry for him, he's probably paid more per week than you are a year and likely has not lived with or depended on his father financially for many years - he'll be just fine, he can afford to fly to NZ quite frequently. My wife earns SUBSTANTIALLY less, and her father lives significantly further away, and both she and he cope just fine too.
How does he ever become recognised (by anyone) as Australian? Which 'he'? Dad? He never will now, his problem not ours. Dusty? Citizenship - keep asking and I will keep telling you, honestly, it's trivial, but you'll come to understand eventually I hope.
Existing passport, so long as it is Australian issue, does mean something, birth certificate, depending on your parent's circumstances may or may not mean anything, Aboriginality with reference to the previous two, shouldn't mean anything, it doesn't elsewhere in the World (and three High Court judges agreed so, so it's hardly as clear cut as you would like to make it out). Ironically, the High Court's 4-3 decision has created a special case of person for the exceptionally few foreign born Aboriginals, which considering equality is the end game is somewhat ironic, we now have to make them something different to treat them the same. Recall, these foreign born Aboriginals do not have the birth certificate you think should count for everything, neither do they have Australian passports.
Citizenship/naturalisation doesn't cost anything like thousands, it would have cost Dusty's dad (the maximum fee) $285, Dusty probably earns more than that during the quarter time break. For some others it might cost down to less than $200, my wife's costs $285, but her friend's only cost her $190 this year.
The department does wait by gaol exits and workplaces to pick these people up, and for good reason! There's a good chance that if you're looking for someone and they're in gaol you'll be able to find them on exit, and if they're work you'll find them at work because you know they're there - waiting for someone without reason on a random street 'just in case' would seem an unnecessary waste of resources.
They pick up people detained in gaol at the exit because whilst in gaol the criminal's visa will have been cancelled, at that point they have no right to be in the country, why wouldn't they pick them up there?
You don't have to prove the department wrong, the criminal merely has to prove they have a valid visa, the government's allegation is that as a convicted serious criminal they no longer hold a valid visa, the department is on pretty solid ground, they're the people that cancelled it.
'10 years on'? Who cares, that someone has gotten away with something for sometime is no reason to let them continue to get away with it, if it takes that long to catch up with them, so be it. I am proof watching my friend's documentary of Bradley Edwards' killings, they took 20+ years to catch up with him, do you think he should still be left doing what he was doing the day before he was arrested?
Who is being asked to prove a negative? In every case of a cancelled visa, or visa not held the accused has a 100% defense, that being that they hold a visa, that's not being required to prove a negative. It's the government that is effectively proving the negative, that being that the soon to be deportee does not hold a visa - think what that word 'not' implies.
You keep missing the point, "not even 'one chance'", again, they have every chance ... to simply comply with laws and not be a serious criminal ... ie - b e h a v e - maybe that will make you read it slower and understand.