Breaking the law

and then expecting to be treated differently when you have to face the consequences is apparently "right" for some people.
And then there are different ways of breaking the law and expecting to be treated differently.
I have been thinking a lot about this recently. Middle Cat and I do not agree over the issue of a family who are fighting deportation. It is an issue which has been much in the news recently. The family have garnered a lot of support in the community and in the media. The parents came out here - separately - by boat. They met and married here and they now have two small children who were born here. They have been fighting deportation for some time. Last week they were put on a plane. At the last minute there was a court injunction preventing the youngest child from being removed. She is being used  in an attempt to have the entire family stay. 
The family is now back in detention on an off-shore processing facility. Their claims to refugee status have been extensively examined by the various authorities - and found to be wanting. 
"Let them stay" and "Free the refugees" has been the cry. The Minister is under pressure and the Prime Minister is under pressure. The media, sensing a story, is putting the pressure on. Refugee advocates obviously feel they have found the perfect family for their cause.
I don't doubt that the people in the small rural community they were living in are genuine in their desire to have  them stay. Small rural communities can be very caring about those they see as their own.
But...and yes there is a but... the parents broke the law in coming here. They are alleged to have broken the law in the country they once called home. That is why they left. They were never given more than temporary protection visas while their cases were examined. 
And their cases have been found wanting, unsubstantiated. It isn't simply a matter of  "the situation is better there now".  Living there may not be as good as living here but, unlike asylum seekers from the same region, they are not refugees fleeing from persecution  or in fear of their lives. Other asylum seekers have been granted the right to live here - but they haven't.
I don't know what the outcome will be. I don't envy those involved. There was a similar case some years ago. The family was returned. For a little while there was news of them but sources inform me that they have now simply resumed their old way of live. Indeed, they are doing rather well as the father is now notorious. His business is thriving as a result. 
I actually sympathise with the family. Of course they would like to stay. In many ways I would like to see them stay. They are the sort of  people small rural communities need - people willing to work and extra children to save small rural schools from closure.
But allowing them to stay raises questions about allowing others to stay. It raises issues about the entire process of deciding who can stay and who must go. If we can't accept the umpires' decision - and in this case the umpires are those administering the law of the land - then we are going to face many more problems. There are too many stories of how the system is being abused, often out of  the misplaced belief that  simply claiming to be a refugee is sufficient to give someone the right to stay. The laws are there for a good reason. They have been put in place after a lot of debate and, generally speaking, with bipartisan support. 
There are so many refugees who have nowhere to go. I have heard of too many in the course of my work. It's a difficult issue all round.
All I can say is that if the family is sent to the home country of the parents then there will have been an extensive review. We need to accept that - even if we don't like the decision.