Asylum Seekers should be allowed into Australia. Good morning Mrs. Pereira and class.

Today I will be speaking about why we should allow asylum seekers to live in Australia. Asylum Seekers are people who flee their homes and countries in the face of persecution or threats to their lives. These people need all the compassion and support that they can get so why arent we letting these people seek shelter in Australia? Dont we as Australians pride ourselves on looking after the needy, disadvantaged and the vulnerable? Some of you may not know this but Australia is one of the many countries that signed the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. They defines a refugee as a person who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence, and has a well-founded fear of being mistreated because of his or her race, religion, nationality or participation of a particular social group or having a different political opinion and have no one to help them. Thus, it appears quite hypocritical that we sign to this convention, yet we turn our backs against the approaching asylum seekers and claim that we cannot help them. This means that Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention of 1951 meaning that a person is able to seek asylum in Australia by boat or by plane, with documents or without them and they are breaking no law. Every sensible person would know that turning our backs on someone who is in need of assistance is unorthodox and uncivilised. Asylum seekers should be allowed to live in Australia but some say that we should not be accepting asylum seekers with the degree of leniency that we do because we are unaware of whom these people really are and may misjudge their character when in actuality they may be terrorists. As intelligent Australians let us think about this sensibly; the possibility that these asylum seekers, who land on our shores having travelled by boat, are terrorists is highly unlikely. The distance from a country such as Afghanistan to Australia is an extremely long way to cover more than 11,000 kilometres. If a terrorist did decide to terrorise our country, wouldnt there be more plausible methods to accomplish this task than to risk their own lives in the choppy, dangerous ocean where they might die before they reach Australia. It is quite bogus to see that some Australians are willing to generalise all of the asylum seekers as terrorists, because many of these asylum seekers are in actuality genuine refugees who come to Australia to seek a better life, and leave their old and unhappy one. Imagine you are in the shoes of one of the asylum seekers. They travelled by boat with their family to get to Australia because they are facing a threat to their lives; would you do the same thing? If you had any common sense the answer would probably be a yes because you want a better life for your family and yourself. How would you feel if people from Australia did not let you in to their country and turned their backs on you? You would probably feel horrible because you want to see the people you love smile and laugh every single day, not hide inside a dirty old shack where they could be killed any minute or second. This is what every asylum seeker out there is feeling. They want to live in Australia. They want a happy life like the one we have and they want to feel safe and secure in their own homes. Therefore, asylum seekers should be allowed to live in Australia. Also, asylum seekers that live in the Australian community do not receive four times the income from Centre link that aged pensioners do as everybody likes to think. In fact, no asylum seeker is eligible for Centre link payments of any kind. Asylum seekers also do not have any access to a health care cards, public housing, settlement services, English programs, job services, traineeships or tertiary education. Many also have no right to even work or to receive a Medicare card. Thus, Asylum seekers should be allowed to live in Australia because they deserve a happier life like the ones we have.

Good morning Mrs. Pereira and class. Today I will be speaking about why we should allow asylum seekers to live in Australia. Asylum Seekers are people who flee their homes and countries in the face of persecution or threats to their lives. These people need all the compassion and support that they can get so why arent we letting these people seek shelter in Australia? Dont we as Australians pride ourselves on looking after the needy, disadvantaged and the vulnerable?

Some of you may not know this but Australia is one of the many countries that signed the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. They defines a refugee as a person who is outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence, and has a wellfounded fear of being mistreated because of his or her race, religion, nationality or participation of a particular social group or having a different political opinion and have no one to help them. Thus, it appears quite hypocritical that we sign to this convention, yet we turn our backs against the approaching asylum seekers and claim that we cannot help them.

This means that Australia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention of 1951 meaning that a person is able to seek asylum in Australia by boat or by plane, with documents or without them and they are breaking no law. Every sensible person would know that turning our backs on someone who is in need of assistance is unorthodox and uncivilised.

Asylum seekers should be allowed to live in Australia but some say that we should not be accepting asylum seekers with the degree of leniency that we do because we are unaware of whom these people really are and may misjudge their character when in actuality they may be terrorists. As intelligent Australians let us think about this sensibly; the possibility that these asylum seekers, who land on our shores having travelled by boat, are terrorists is highly unlikely. The distance from a country such as Afghanistan to Australia is an extremely long way to cover more than 11,000 kilometres.

If a terrorist did decide to terrorise our country, wouldnt there be more plausible methods to accomplish this task than to risk their own lives in the choppy, dangerous ocean where they might die before they reach Australia. It is quite bogus to see that some Australians are willing to generalise all of the asylum seekers as terrorists, because many of these asylum seekers are genuine refugees who come to Australia to seek a better life and leave their old and unhappy one. Imagine you are in the shoes of one of the asylum seekers. They travelled by boat with their family to get to Australia because they are facing a threat to their lives; would you do the same thing?

If you had any common sense the answer would probably be a yes because you want a better life for your family and yourself. How would you feel if people from Australia did not let you in to their country and turned their backs on you? You would probably feel horrible because you want to see the people you love smile and laugh every single day, not hide inside a dirty old shack where they could be killed any minute or second. This is what every asylum seeker out there is feeling. They want to live in Australia. They want a happy life like the one we have and they want to feel safe and secure in their own homes. Therefore, asylum seekers should be allowed to live in Australia.

Also, asylum seekers that live in the Australian community do not receive four times the income from Centre link that aged pensioners do as everybody likes to think. In fact, no asylum seeker is eligible for Centre link payments of any kind. Asylum seekers also do not have any access to a health care cards, public housing, settlement services, English programs, job services, traineeships or tertiary education. Many also have no right to even work or to receive a Medicare card. Thus, Asylum seekers should be allowed to live in Australia because they deserve a happier life like the ones we have.

Through the speech I informed the viewers about the plight to allow asylum seekers to live in Australia. I have asserted that asylum seekers should be allowed to live in Australia because they are terrified for their lives because their lives are being threatened. I have used a rational tone throughout the whole speech. I used rhetorical questions in the speech to try to get the listeners to think for themselves and ask themselves if they would do the same thing as the asylum seekers did. By asking rhetorical questions about how the reader would react and feel if they were in the asylum seekers shoes. By using rhetorical questions such as would you do the same thing and how would you like it if the people of Australia did not let you into their country, it taps into the audiences head and gets them to unconsciously accept that asylum seekers should be allowed into Australia thus the audience would have felt persuaded because of their own thinking. Therefore coming to the conclusion that asylum seekers should be allowed to live in Australia because they are genuinely afraid and their lives are being threatened. I have also used appeal to logic in the speech to try to convey to the audience that I am rational and reasonable because I am outlining the reason for allowing asylum seekers to live in Australia with the main reasons being, how their lives threatened and how these asylum seekers are genuine and not terrorists. By explaining these main reasons I merge the audience into the speech and slowly persuade them to believe that asylum seekers should be able to live in Australia. When appealing to rational thinking, I use appeal to conformity when I say as intelligent Australian let us think about this sensibly because this would position the audience to feel that if they want to be intelligent and sensible then they must agree with the fact that asylum seekers should be able to live in Australia. Appeal to emotion has also been used throughout this speech to tap into the audiences feelings so that it is easier to persuade them to change their perspectives and allow asylum seekers to live in Australia. Positive words such as love, smile and laugh that have been used will position the reader to feel that they must help these asylum seekers by letting them live in Australia because in their country of origin, they are lacking these emotions in their everyday lives. Thus by using emotive language in the speech it would pressure the audience to agree with letting asylum seekers live in Australia.

Through the speech I informed the viewers about the plight to allow asylum seekers to live in Australia. I have asserted that asylum seekers should be allowed to live in Australia because they are terrified for their lives because their lives are being threatened. I have used a rational tone throughout the whole speech.

I used rhetorical questions in the speech to try to get the listeners to think for themselves and ask themselves if they would do the same thing as the asylum seekers did. By asking rhetorical questions about how the reader would react and feel if they were in the asylum seekers shoes. By using rhetorical questions such as would you do the same thing and how would you like it if the people of Australia did not let you into their country,

it taps into the audiences head and gets them to unconsciously accept that asylum seekers should be allowed into Australia thus the audience would have felt persuaded because of their own thinking. Therefore coming to the conclusion that asylum seekers should be allowed to live in Australia because they are genuinely afraid and their lives are being threatened.

I have also used appeal to logic in the speech to try to convey to the audience that I am rational and reasonable because I am outlining the reason for allowing asylum seekers to live in Australia with the main reasons being, how their lives threatened and how these asylum seekers are genuine and not terrorists. By explaining these main reasons I merge the audience into the speech and slowly persuade them to believe that asylum seekers should be able to live in Australia. Appeal to emotion has also been used throughout this speech to tap into the audiences feelings so that it is easier to persuade them to change their perspectives and allow asylum seekers to live in Australia. Positive words such as love, smile and laugh that have been used will position the reader to feel that they must help these asylum seekers by letting them live in Australia because in their country of origin,

When appealing to rational thinking, I use appeal to conformity when I say as intelligent Australian let us think about this sensibly because this would position the audience to feel that if they want to be intelligent and sensible then they must agree with the fact that asylum seekers should be able to live in Australia.

they are lacking these emotions in their everyday lives. Thus by using emotive language in the speech it would pressure the audience to agree with letting asylum seekers live in Australia.