Seeking asylum is a right

but do you have the right to seek asylum if you have raped or murdered? Do you have the right to seek asylum if you have committed some other act considered to be an offence in the country in which you seek asylum? 

We do not return people to countries which would impose the death penalty on a specific person for a specific offence. Does this mean that someone who has raped or murdered can come to this country seeking asylum knowing they cannot be returned to their own? Does it mean that they do not need to face the consequences of their actions? Does it mean that they can live in the community free of any restrictions?

There is currently a problem here because the High Court ruled that the indefinite detention of one individual was unlawful.  I don't know all the circumstances and I have not read the judgment. It might be interesting to do so. The judgment has had consequences.

It has meant that a number of asylum seekers who have committed serious criminal offences and are known to have committed those offences have been freed from indefinite detention and are now out in the community. The government is "monitoring" them but it would appear that this is not very successful. Three of them have already alleged to have committed further offences. An article in this morning's paper suggests it will not be long before others released from detention will do the same thing. These are all men who cannot be returned to their country of origin - even if their countries of origin want them.

Apparently the rest of us have to wait until they commit further offences before we can lock them up again. When we do lock them up it may well be for very short periods of time and then they will be free to offend again and again. Some of these men are "career criminals". They are not going to obtain gainful employment. It is likely innocent people will suffer at their hands again. One of these people has already had to be detained again because of an alleged rape of a woman who was a stranger to him. I can already hear the arguments his legal team (provided by the government) will make in his favour.  They will say things like he has been severely traumatised while in detention, that he believed it was consensual and much more. If he is found guilty these will also be used as "mitigating circumstances" and there will be appeals if the sentence is considered too harsh. Somewhere along the line there will be a "refugee advocate" involved.

I do not know what the answer to these issues is likely to be but what should come first? Should it be the rights of that one individual or the safety of the community? It is possible that most people will think it should be the safety of the community. 

If that is so then the question which is being asked needs an answer. Why didn't the government do something sooner? They knew what was coming up and what the answer was going to be.