Some lefties here believe that these people are saying that "claiming asylum" is not illegal therefore it absolve these people from illegally entering Australia. This is despite the Migration Act and Un Refugee convention saying otherwise. We'll put that aside for a second because if they are not illegal then there's no need to deport them. You don't deport someone who is in Australia legally.

Back to the story.

These illegals are detained as per the Migration Act. The Migration Act also provide prosecutions via the Criminal Code.

They have broken out of detention. Any criminals who breaks out of their detention are further prosecuted.

So should these illegals now have these breakouts count against them ie they've broken Australian law the second time and the UN Refugee convention requires them to adhere by all laws of the country they are claiming asylum.




Quote:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/16348676/five-asylum-seekers-attempt-nauru-escape/ A group of asylum seekers has attempted to escape from the Nauru regional immigration processing centre. The Department of Immigration says five people breached the fences of the Nauru centre yesterday. One man is understood to have made it into town. An Immigration Department spokeswoman says the five detainees were soon returned to the centre. There have also been three new cases of self-harm at the centre. The men are receiving medical care on Nauru. The centre opened in August as part of the Australian Government's plan to deal with irregular boat arrivals, but processing has been delayed. On Tuesday afternoon the Government announced that asylum seekers on Nauru will be able to start the process to apply for refugee status from March 18. Two service providers have been awarded contracts to assist them. The Nauruan justice secretary will decide whether they are valid. The Government says the assistance should not be taken as an indication that offshore arrivals will be considered ahead of those who come to Australia through regular channels.

they've broken Australian law the second time and the UN Refugee convention requires them to adhere by all laws of the country they are claiming asylum.

They still havn't broken any Australian Law.

This may surprise you but Nauru is not part of Australia and is not subject to Australian Laws.

Perhaps this will clear it up for you Macca.....No need to thank me!!!


Quote:

'Asylum seekers', 'illegal immigrants' and entry without a visa             Advisory Guideline The legal status of people who have entered Australia by boat without a visa is complex and potentially confusing. Their entry is not legally authorised but is not a criminal offence. The Australian Government usually refers to such entrants as "unauthorised boat arrivals" or "irregular maritime arrivals" but they are also "unlawful non-citizens" under the Migration Act. Entrants by boat without a visa are entitled to seek asylum and, in practice, almost all of them do so. If the Government’s initial processing suggests they may have a valid case, they are classified as "asylum seekers" and allowed to stay in Australia while the claim is being finally determined. They remain "unlawful non-citizens" until their claim is approved (whereupon they get a permanent protection visa) or they receive a "bridging visa" pending finalisation of their claim. If their claim is rejected, they have not committed an offence but are liable to deportation. Most entrants by boat without a visa do not seek to evade the authorities upon arrival. Instead, they seek to establish a legal right to stay as a refugee. Their position is very different from those people, including many who arrive with a short-term visa, who seek to remain permanently in the country on a clandestine basis (that is, "over-stayers"). In these circumstances, great care must be taken to avoid describing people who arrived by boat without a visa in terms that are likely to be inaccurate or unfair in relation to at least some of them. This can arise, for example, if the terms can reasonably be interpreted as implying criminality or other serious misbehaviour on the part of all or many people who arrive in this manner. Depending on the specific context, therefore, terms such as "illegal immigrants" or "illegals" may constitute a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice on these grounds. The risk of breach can usually be avoided by using a term such as "asylum seekers" although in some cases, of course, the context may require reference to their unlawful or unauthorised entry or their status as unlawful non-citizens pending determination of their claims (if they do not have bridging visas). http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/asylum-seekers/?locatorgroupid=662&locatorf..

Quote:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-called-on-illegal-slur-20121121-29qa8.html http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/asylum-seekers-are-not-illegal/story-e6frerdf-1225847081703 http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/asylumfacts.pdf ANU international law professor Don Rothwell said it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum. ''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said.

Either the professor is incorrect or you and Abbott are Macca.....Care to call the Professor a liar Macca???

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 11:22pm:

Quote: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-called-on-illegal-slur-20121121-29qa8.html http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/asylum-seekers-are-not-illegal/story-e6frerdf-1225847081703 http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/asylumfacts.pdf ANU international law professor Don Rothwell said it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum. ''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said. Either the professor is incorrect or you and Abbott are Macca.....Care to call the Professor a liar Macca???

Your references says they are able to present themselves to make an asylum claim. This is correct - present themselves once they have crossed the border.

But before they do so - they are illegal under the Migration Act and subject to deportation

Upon making the claim - deportation is suspended until their claims are assessed

There's nowhere in your article that refuted the fact with references to the Migration Act

The Professor has not said it was not illegal. He simply said (in the inverted commas) they have the right to present themselves

The professor has not made any comment about them entering the country without papers - which is what Abbott was referring to

Maqqa wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 12th, 2013 at 11:22pm: Quote: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-called-on-illegal-slur-20121121-29qa8.html http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/asylum-seekers-are-not-illegal/story-e6frerdf-1225847081703 http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/asylumfacts.pdf ANU international law professor Don Rothwell said it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum. ''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said. Either the professor is incorrect or you and Abbott are Macca.....Care to call the Professor a liar Macca??? Your references says they are able to present themselves to make an asylum claim. This is correct - present themselves once they have crossed the border. But before they do so - they are illegal under the Migration Act and subject to deportation Upon making the claim - deportation is suspended until their claims are assessed There's nowhere in your article that refuted the fact with references to the Migration Act The Professor has not said it was not illegal. He simply said (in the inverted commas) they have the right to present themselves The professor has not made any comment about them entering the country without papers - which is what Abbott was referring to

Accept the Professor did comment on people seeking asylum entering Australia without a Visa and he did say it was not illegal!!!

it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 12:12am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 12th, 2013 at 11:42pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 12th, 2013 at 11:22pm: Quote: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-called-on-illegal-slur-20121121-29qa8.html http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/asylum-seekers-are-not-illegal/story-e6frerdf-1225847081703 http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/asylumfacts.pdf ANU international law professor Don Rothwell said it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum. ''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said. Either the professor is incorrect or you and Abbott are Macca.....Care to call the Professor a liar Macca??? Your references says they are able to present themselves to make an asylum claim. This is correct - present themselves once they have crossed the border. But before they do so - they are illegal under the Migration Act and subject to deportation Upon making the claim - deportation is suspended until their claims are assessed There's nowhere in your article that refuted the fact with references to the Migration Act The Professor has not said it was not illegal. He simply said (in the inverted commas) they have the right to present themselves The professor has not made any comment about them entering the country without papers - which is what Abbott was referring to Accept the Professor did comment on people seeking asylum entering Australia without a Visa and he did say it was not illegal!!! it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum ::) ::) ::)

quote his exact words then

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 12:14am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 12:12am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 12th, 2013 at 11:42pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 12th, 2013 at 11:22pm: Quote: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-called-on-illegal-slur-20121121-29qa8.html http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/asylum-seekers-are-not-illegal/story-e6frerdf-1225847081703 http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/asylumfacts.pdf ANU international law professor Don Rothwell said it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum. ''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said. Either the professor is incorrect or you and Abbott are Macca.....Care to call the Professor a liar Macca??? Your references says they are able to present themselves to make an asylum claim. This is correct - present themselves once they have crossed the border. But before they do so - they are illegal under the Migration Act and subject to deportation Upon making the claim - deportation is suspended until their claims are assessed There's nowhere in your article that refuted the fact with references to the Migration Act The Professor has not said it was not illegal. He simply said (in the inverted commas) they have the right to present themselves The professor has not made any comment about them entering the country without papers - which is what Abbott was referring to Accept the Professor did comment on people seeking asylum entering Australia without a Visa and he did say it was not illegal!!! it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum ::) ::) ::) quote his exact words then

The quote posted was cut and pasted from the article provided!!!


Quote:

But ANU international law professor Don Rothwell said it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum. ''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-called-on-illegal-slur-20121121-29qa8.html

Anyway I am off to bed.....Goodnight all!!!

:) :) :)

phil
Quote:

Accept the Professor did comment on people seeking asylum entering Australia without a Visa and he did say it was not illegal!!! it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum

Quote:

''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said.

Where did the professor mention the word VISA???

I can't figure out if Maqqa is the ultimate troll, or just completely retarded.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 12:45am:

phil Quote: Accept the Professor did comment on people seeking asylum entering Australia without a Visa and he did say it was not illegal!!! it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum [quote]''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said.

Where did the professor mention the word VISA???[/quote]

He didn't, because you cannot even board a flight in Auckland bound for Sydney without a passport (and, depending on the country your passport says you are from, a visa). They won't even let you through Customs to the gate.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 10:46pm:

Some lefties here believe that these people are saying that "claiming asylum" is not illegal therefore it absolve these people from illegally entering Australia. This is despite the Migration Act and Un Refugee convention saying otherwise. We'll put that aside for a second because if they are not illegal then there's no need to deport them. You don't deport someone who is in Australia legally. Back to the story. These illegals are detained as per the Migration Act. The Migration Act also provide prosecutions via the Criminal Code. They have broken out of detention. Any criminals who breaks out of their detention are further prosecuted. So should these illegals now have these breakouts count against them ie they've broken Australian law the second time and the UN Refugee convention requires them to adhere by all laws of the country they are claiming asylum. Quote: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/16348676/five-asylum-seekers-attempt-nauru-escape/ A group of asylum seekers has attempted to escape from the Nauru regional immigration processing centre. The Department of Immigration says five people breached the fences of the Nauru centre yesterday. One man is understood to have made it into town. An Immigration Department spokeswoman says the five detainees were soon returned to the centre. There have also been three new cases of self-harm at the centre. The men are receiving medical care on Nauru. The centre opened in August as part of the Australian Government's plan to deal with irregular boat arrivals, but processing has been delayed. On Tuesday afternoon the Government announced that asylum seekers on Nauru will be able to start the process to apply for refugee status from March 18. Two service providers have been awarded contracts to assist them. The Nauruan justice secretary will decide whether they are valid. The Government says the assistance should not be taken as an indication that offshore arrivals will be considered ahead of those who come to Australia through regular channels.

Maqqa - not only are they not illegal but they dont enter australia until they are given a visa!

Seriously why do you persist in this?

SOB

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 12:45am:

phil Quote: Accept the Professor did comment on people seeking asylum entering Australia without a Visa and he did say it was not illegal!!! it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum [quote]''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said.

Where did the professor mention the word VISA???[/quote]




Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 12:45am:

phil Quote: Accept the Professor did comment on people seeking asylum entering Australia without a Visa and he did say it was not illegal!!! it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum [quote]''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said.

Where did the professor mention the word VISA???[/quote]


ANU international law professor Don Rothwell said it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum.

''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said


No need to thank me Macca......Perhaps you should invest in a pair of reading glasses???

[smiley=lolk.gif] [smiley=lolk.gif] [smiley=lolk.gif]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-called-on-illegal-slur-20121121-29qa8.html

i cant see why we just don't call them 'Government hand out country shoppers.'

boat scabs would be another accurate label

Another thread that showcases the kind of fool to whom certain politicians are dog whistling.

What is their take on the thousands of visitors who overstay their visas with the clear intention of evading authorities and detection for as long as they can... Permanently, if possible?

Those asylum seekers arriving by boat (a pitiful few relative to those visitors willfully overstaying on visas) can hardly be more visible and do not intend or expect to evade detection.

Getting somewhat sick of this debate, I thought going straight to the Act may be useful:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/

1. The term "illegal immigrant" is no longer part of the Act.

2. It has been essentially replaced by the term "non-lawful citizen".

3. A person arriving by boat seeking asylum is only considered a "non-lawful citizen" for the period between entering the Australian migration zone, and being intercepted. Once they are intercepted, they are no longer considered "non-lawful citizens".

4. The migration zone includes all Australian states, territories, ports and installations, but does not include the sea around those states and territories, unless in a port.

By my interpretation, unless the boat makes it to land or port before being intercepted, then they are never considered "non-lawful citizens" under the Act.

Perhaps Maqqa, you'd like to find any section of the Act that supports your claim that they are "illegals".

Infarction wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:48am:

I can't figure out if Maqqa is the ultimate troll, or just completely retarded.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Infarction wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:48am:

I can't figure out if Maqqa is the ultimate troll, or just completely retarded.

My vote is for retarded ... he has to be!

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Getting somewhat sick of this debate, I thought going straight to the Act may be useful: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ 1. The term "illegal immigrant" is no longer part of the Act. 2. It has been essentially replaced by the term "non-lawful citizen". 3. A person arriving by boat seeking asylum is only considered a "non-lawful citizen" for the period between entering the Australian migration zone, and being intercepted. Once they are intercepted, they are no longer considered "non-lawful citizens". 4. The migration zone includes all Australian states, territories, ports and installations, but does not include the sea around those states and territories, unless in a port. By my interpretation, unless the boat makes it to land or port before being intercepted, then they are never considered "non-lawful citizens" under the Act. Perhaps Maqqa, you'd like to find any section of the Act that supports your claim that they are "illegals".

(1) I have NEVER used the terms "illegal immigrants" to describe these people

(2) Migration Act Section 14 sub 2 recognise the name change from illegal entrants to unlawful non-citizens

(3) The word unlawful is the same as the word illegal under various accepted dictionaries you can search

(4) The act of breaking the law is describe as being illegal - therefore a bunch of people breaking the law are called illegals

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Getting somewhat sick of this debate, I thought going straight to the Act may be useful: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ 1. The term "illegal immigrant" is no longer part of the Act. 2. It has been essentially replaced by the term "non-lawful citizen". 3. A person arriving by boat seeking asylum is only considered a "non-lawful citizen" for the period between entering the Australian migration zone, and being intercepted. Once they are intercepted, they are no longer considered "non-lawful citizens". 4. The migration zone includes all Australian states, territories, ports and installations, but does not include the sea around those states and territories, unless in a port. By my interpretation, unless the boat makes it to land or port before being intercepted, then they are never considered "non-lawful citizens" under the Act.

All of what you have said is 100% correct, however, Maqqa will not have any of it.  These facts have all been explained to him several times before but he simply does not (or can not) understand.


NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Perhaps Maqqa, you'd like to find any section of the Act that supports your claim that they are "illegals".

He will probably direct you to section 14(2) of the Migration Act:

"To avoid doubt, a non-citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen."

Now, we can all see that this completely destroys Maqqa's "argument" and confirms that asylum seekers are certainly not "illegals".  The text could not be any clearer, yet Maqqa remains unconvinced.

Maqqa will tell you that "illegals" are people who have broken the law (he's not calling them illegal immigrants).  He can't tell you which law they have broken, but he'll stay on that message until he's blue in the face.

I don't know if Maqqa is just a good troll, or simply a few sandwiches short of a picnic.  I suspect a little of both.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Maqqa will tell you that "illegals" are people who have broken the law (he's not calling them illegal immigrants).  He can't tell you which law they have broken, but he'll stay on that message until he's blue in the face.

Migration Act section 4 sub 3 & 4

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:30pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Getting somewhat sick of this debate, I thought going straight to the Act may be useful: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ 1. The term "illegal immigrant" is no longer part of the Act. 2. It has been essentially replaced by the term "non-lawful citizen". 3. A person arriving by boat seeking asylum is only considered a "non-lawful citizen" for the period between entering the Australian migration zone, and being intercepted. Once they are intercepted, they are no longer considered "non-lawful citizens". 4. The migration zone includes all Australian states, territories, ports and installations, but does not include the sea around those states and territories, unless in a port. By my interpretation, unless the boat makes it to land or port before being intercepted, then they are never considered "non-lawful citizens" under the Act. Perhaps Maqqa, you'd like to find any section of the Act that supports your claim that they are "illegals". (1) I have NEVER used the terms "illegal immigrants" to describe these people (2) Migration Act Section 14 sub 2 recognise the name change from illegal entrants to unlawful non-citizens (3) The word unlawful is the same as the word illegal under various accepted dictionaries you can search (4) The act of breaking the law is describe as being illegal - therefore a bunch of people breaking the law are called illegals

Ummm. You seem to have missed the point. Unless the boat reaches Australian land or an Australian port before being intercepted, then the people on board are never non-lawful citizens (illegals).

If they are intercepted in the ocean, they immediately become lawful citizens, and are escorted to Australia as such. See

s42

Quote:

(1)  Subject to subsections (2), (2A) and (3), a non-citizen must not travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect.           (2A)  Subsection (1) does not apply to a non-citizen in relation to travel to Australia:                      (a)  if the travel is by a New Zealand citizen who holds and produces a New Zealand passport that is in force; or                      (b)  if the travel is by a non-citizen who holds and produces a passport that is in force and is endorsed with an authority to reside indefinitely on Norfolk Island; or                      (c)  if:                               (i)  the non-citizen is brought to the migration zone under subsection 245F(9) of this Act or 185(3A) of the Customs Act 1901 ; and                              (ii)  the non-citizen is a person who would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen; or

s245F

Quote:

Powers of officers in respect of people found on detained ships or aircraft              (9)  If an officer detains a ship or aircraft under this section, the officer may:                      (a)  detain any person found on the ship or aircraft and bring the person, or cause the person to be brought, to the migration zone; or

ie: Unless they reach land/port before being intercepted, they have not broken any Australian law, and therefore can not be described as being illegals.

When was the last time a boat managed to reach land/port before being intercepted?

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:43pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:30pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Getting somewhat sick of this debate, I thought going straight to the Act may be useful: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ 1. The term "illegal immigrant" is no longer part of the Act. 2. It has been essentially replaced by the term "non-lawful citizen". 3. A person arriving by boat seeking asylum is only considered a "non-lawful citizen" for the period between entering the Australian migration zone, and being intercepted. Once they are intercepted, they are no longer considered "non-lawful citizens". 4. The migration zone includes all Australian states, territories, ports and installations, but does not include the sea around those states and territories, unless in a port. By my interpretation, unless the boat makes it to land or port before being intercepted, then they are never considered "non-lawful citizens" under the Act. Perhaps Maqqa, you'd like to find any section of the Act that supports your claim that they are "illegals". (1) I have NEVER used the terms "illegal immigrants" to describe these people (2) Migration Act Section 14 sub 2 recognise the name change from illegal entrants to unlawful non-citizens (3) The word unlawful is the same as the word illegal under various accepted dictionaries you can search (4) The act of breaking the law is describe as being illegal - therefore a bunch of people breaking the law are called illegals Ummm. You seem to have missed the point. Unless the boat reaches Australian land or an Australian port before being intercepted, then the people on board are never non-lawful citizens (illegals). If they are intercepted in the ocean, they immediately become lawful citizens, and are escorted to Australia as such. See s42(2c) and s245F (9a) When was the last time a boat managed to reach land/port before being intercepted?

Lets look at this concept of "reach" Aust land or port and see what the Act says

The Act does not say "reach" - so you are wrong there

The Act provide that they "enter" the migration zone.

The migration zone includes sea limits and is governed concurrently by the Sea Installation Act 1987

Therefore there's no requirement in the Act that says they have to reach a port or land

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:43pm:

Ummm. You seem to have missed the point.

You get that a lot with Maqqa.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:52pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:43pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:30pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Getting somewhat sick of this debate, I thought going straight to the Act may be useful: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ 1. The term "illegal immigrant" is no longer part of the Act. 2. It has been essentially replaced by the term "non-lawful citizen". 3. A person arriving by boat seeking asylum is only considered a "non-lawful citizen" for the period between entering the Australian migration zone, and being intercepted. Once they are intercepted, they are no longer considered "non-lawful citizens". 4. The migration zone includes all Australian states, territories, ports and installations, but does not include the sea around those states and territories, unless in a port. By my interpretation, unless the boat makes it to land or port before being intercepted, then they are never considered "non-lawful citizens" under the Act. Perhaps Maqqa, you'd like to find any section of the Act that supports your claim that they are "illegals". (1) I have NEVER used the terms "illegal immigrants" to describe these people (2) Migration Act Section 14 sub 2 recognise the name change from illegal entrants to unlawful non-citizens (3) The word unlawful is the same as the word illegal under various accepted dictionaries you can search (4) The act of breaking the law is describe as being illegal - therefore a bunch of people breaking the law are called illegals Ummm. You seem to have missed the point. Unless the boat reaches Australian land or an Australian port before being intercepted, then the people on board are never non-lawful citizens (illegals). If they are intercepted in the ocean, they immediately become lawful citizens, and are escorted to Australia as such. See s42(2c) and s245F (9a) When was the last time a boat managed to reach land/port before being intercepted? Lets look at this concept of "reach" Aust land or port and see what the Act says The Act does not say "reach" - so you are wrong there The Act provide that they "enter" the migration zone. The migration zone includes sea limits and is governed concurrently by the Sea Installation Act 1987 Therefore there's no requirement in the Act that says they have to reach a port or land

Wrong:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s5.html#migration_zone


Quote:

"migration zone" means the area consisting of the States, the Territories, Australian resource installations and Australian sea installations and, to avoid doubt, includes:                      (a)  land that is part of a State or Territory at mean low water; and                      (b)  sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port; and                      (c)  piers, or similar structures, any part of which is connected to such land or to ground under such sea; but does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory but not in a port.

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:43pm:

ie: Unless they reach land/port before being intercepted, they have not broken any Australian law, and therefore can not be described as being illegals. When was the last time a boat managed to reach land/port before being intercepted?

No

That's your assumption

Look at the definition of Migration Zone

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:54pm:

Wrong: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s5.html#migration_zone Quote: "migration zone" means the area consisting of the States, the Territories, Australian resource installations and Australian sea installations and, to avoid doubt, includes:                      (a)  land that is part of a State or Territory at mean low water; and                      (b)  sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port; and                      (c)  piers, or similar structures, any part of which is connected to such land or to ground under such sea; but does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory but not in a port.

You've ignored point (b) and decide to take half a sentence from the last part

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:56pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ie: Unless they reach land/port before being intercepted, they have not broken any Australian law, and therefore can not be described as being illegals. When was the last time a boat managed to reach land/port before being intercepted? No That's your assumption Look at the definition of Migration Zone

I did, and posted it above. Perhaps you can't read.

It's quite clear that it only includes the sea within the limits of the state/territory if it is also within the limits of the port.
Read it again.

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:59pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:56pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:43pm: ie: Unless they reach land/port before being intercepted, they have not broken any Australian law, and therefore can not be described as being illegals. When was the last time a boat managed to reach land/port before being intercepted? No That's your assumption Look at the definition of Migration Zone I did, and posted it above. Perhaps you can't read. It's quite clear that it only includes the sea within the limits of the state/territory if it is also within the limits of the port. Read it again.

so what is the limit of that sea?

Australian waters?

Australian waters also include sea installation - which is government by the Sea Installation Act 1987

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:58pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:54pm: Wrong: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s5.html#migration_zone Quote: "migration zone" means the area consisting of the States, the Territories, Australian resource installations and Australian sea installations and, to avoid doubt, includes:                      (a)  land that is part of a State or Territory at mean low water; and                      (b)  sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port; and                      (c)  piers, or similar structures, any part of which is connected to such land or to ground under such sea; but does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory but not in a port. You've ignored point (b) and decide to take half a sentence from the last part

I didn't ignore point (b) at all.

Point B says the "migration zone includes sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port"

The definition then goes on to say that the migration zone does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory that is not in a port.

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:04pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:58pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:54pm: Wrong: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s5.html#migration_zone Quote: "migration zone" means the area consisting of the States, the Territories, Australian resource installations and Australian sea installations and, to avoid doubt, includes:                      (a)  land that is part of a State or Territory at mean low water; and                      (b)  sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port; and                      (c)  piers, or similar structures, any part of which is connected to such land or to ground under such sea; but does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory but not in a port. You've ignored point (b) and decide to take half a sentence from the last part I didn't ignore point (b) at all. Point B says the "migration zone includes sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port" The definition then goes on to say that the migration zone does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory that is not in a port.

NBNMyths, you have the patience of a saint.

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:04pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:58pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:54pm: Wrong: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s5.html#migration_zone Quote: "migration zone" means the area consisting of the States, the Territories, Australian resource installations and Australian sea installations and, to avoid doubt, includes:                      (a)  land that is part of a State or Territory at mean low water; and                      (b)  sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port; and                      (c)  piers, or similar structures, any part of which is connected to such land or to ground under such sea; but does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory but not in a port. You've ignored point (b) and decide to take half a sentence from the last part I didn't ignore point (b) at all. Point B says the "migration zone includes sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port" The definition then goes on to say that the migration zone does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory that is not in a port.

The sea and the port

Which is in Australian waters

Australian waters is considered a sea installation

Therefore crossing it is a violation of the Act

Don't forget - S1(a) it includes Coastal Area as per Customs Act 1901

Coastal area


Quote:

"Coastal area" means the area comprising the waters of:                      (a)  the territorial sea of Australia; and                      (b)  the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea of Australia and not within the limits of a State or an internal Territory.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:21pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 5:04pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:58pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 4:54pm: Wrong: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s5.html#migration_zone Quote: "migration zone" means the area consisting of the States, the Territories, Australian resource installations and Australian sea installations and, to avoid doubt, includes:                      (a)  land that is part of a State or Territory at mean low water; and                      (b)  sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port; and                      (c)  piers, or similar structures, any part of which is connected to such land or to ground under such sea; but does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory but not in a port. You've ignored point (b) and decide to take half a sentence from the last part I didn't ignore point (b) at all. Point B says the "migration zone includes sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port" The definition then goes on to say that the migration zone does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory that is not in a port. The sea and the port Which is in Australian waters Australian waters is considered a sea installation Therefore crossing it is a violation of the Act

I'm glad you're not a lawyer. You'd be broke.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sia1987195/s4.html#sea_installation

Quote:

"sea installation" means:                      (a)  any man-made structure that, when in, or brought into, physical contact with the seabed or when floating, can be used for an environment related activity;                      (b)  any partly constructed structure that, when completed, is intended to be, or could be, a structure referred to in paragraph (a); or                      (c)  the remains of a structure that has been a structure referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);

Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation".  :-[





Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

Don't forget - S1(a) it includes Coastal Area as per Customs Act 1901 Coastal area Quote: "Coastal area" means the area comprising the waters of:                      (a)  the territorial sea of Australia; and                      (b)  the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea of Australia and not within the limits of a State or an internal Territory.

The definition of a coastal area is not relevant in any way, as it does not form part of the migration zone or the migration Act.

[quote author=NBNMyths link=1363092398/35#35 date=1363165408]
Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation".  :-[/quote]

I said Australian waters as being a sea installation

For a detailed explanation see section 9

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

[quote author=NBNMyths link=1363092398/35#35 date=1363165408] Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation".  :-[/quote] I said Australian waters as being a sea installation For a detailed explanation see section 9

Australian waters are not a sea installation, as defined by the act.

How about you just admit you've been wrong all this time, and stop embarrassing yourself further?

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:08pm: [quote author=NBNMyths link=1363092398/35#35 date=1363165408] Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation".  :-[/quote] I said Australian waters as being a sea installation For a detailed explanation see section 9 Australian waters are not a sea installation, as defined by the act. How about you just admit you've been wrong all this time, and stop embarrassing yourself further?

he'll never do it .. he is either to stupid or to stupid to admit that he is wrong, personally I think it's a little of both.

Under the Geneva Convention, all prisoners of war have the right to attempt escape. In Nazi Germany, of course, they’d shoot you. Look at the end of the Great Escape.

But in modern Australia? Send you back to the Russian front.

We might not set up the machine guns ourselves, but we’ll happily send you back where you came from.

You see? You attempted to escape. You deserve everything you get.

Mind you, I have to ask. How do people escape from Nauru? Do they get a big sack of coconuts like Steve McQueen at the end of Papillon?

Those French prison camps were meant to be escape-proof. Not our Pacific detention centres.

They’re like Stalag 17.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Getting somewhat sick of this debate, I thought going straight to the Act may be useful: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ 1. The term "illegal immigrant" is no longer part of the Act. 2. It has been essentially replaced by the term "non-lawful citizen". 3. A person arriving by boat seeking asylum is only considered a "non-lawful citizen" for the period between entering the Australian migration zone, and being intercepted. Once they are intercepted, they are no longer considered "non-lawful citizens". 4. The migration zone includes all Australian states, territories, ports and installations, but does not include the sea around those states and territories, unless in a port. By my interpretation, unless the boat makes it to land or port before being intercepted, then they are never considered "non-lawful citizens" under the Act. All of what you have said is 100% correct, however, Maqqa will not have any of it.  These facts have all been explained to him several times before but he simply does not (or can not) understand. NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Perhaps Maqqa, you'd like to find any section of the Act that supports your claim that they are "illegals". He will probably direct you to section 14(2) of the Migration Act: "To avoid doubt, a non-citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen." Now, we can all see that this completely destroys Maqqa's "argument" and confirms that asylum seekers are certainly not "illegals".  The text could not be any clearer, yet Maqqa remains unconvinced. Maqqa will tell you that "illegals" are people who have broken the law (he's not calling them illegal immigrants).  He can't tell you which law they have broken, but he'll stay on that message until he's blue in the face. I don't know if Maqqa is just a good troll, or simply a few sandwiches short of a picnic.  I suspect a little of both.

When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? Wow, what a dope!!! Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? Sucks to be you!!!

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

[quote author=NBNMyths link=1363092398/35#35 date=1363165408] Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation".  :-[/quote] I said Australian waters as being a sea installation For a detailed explanation see section 9

Sea installation, eh?

Anyone for behaviour protocols?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:23pm:

When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? Wow, what a dope!!! Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? Sucks to be you!!!

Perhaps you need to read the whole thread.

To summarise, arrivals are not considered illegal or unlawful under the Act unless they reach the Australian landmass or an Australian port before they are intercepted. If they are intercepted at sea and escorted to Australia to claim asylum, they are considered "lawful citizens". They remain "lawful citizens" unless their claims for asylum are subsequently rejected.

Sucks to be illiterate.  ::)

Just to get back to the OP, where Maqqa claimed:


Quote:

if they are not illegal then there's no need to deport them. You don't deport someone who is in Australia legally.

Just wanted to quote for the LOLs.

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:13pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:08pm: [quote author=NBNMyths link=1363092398/35#35 date=1363165408] Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation".  :-[/quote] I said Australian waters as being a sea installation For a detailed explanation see section 9 Australian waters are not a sea installation, as defined by the act. How about you just admit you've been wrong all this time, and stop embarrassing yourself further?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s5.html#australian_waters

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? Wow, what a dope!!! Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? Sucks to be you!!! Perhaps you need to read the whole thread. To summarise, arrivals are not considered illegal or unlawful under the Act unless they reach the Australian landmass or an Australian port before they are intercepted. If they are intercepted at sea and escorted to Australia to claim asylum, they are considered "lawful citizens". They remain "lawful citizens" unless their claims for asylum are subsequently rejected. Sucks to be illiterate.  ::)

Yes, it must be so difficult for you to be illiterate. If they were considered lawful citizens, then (a) they would need to hold Australian citizenship to be called a "citizen" of Australia and (b) they'd need a passport and visa - both of which they threw overboard...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:49pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? Wow, what a dope!!! Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? Sucks to be you!!! Perhaps you need to read the whole thread. To summarise, arrivals are not considered illegal or unlawful under the Act unless they reach the Australian landmass or an Australian port before they are intercepted. If they are intercepted at sea and escorted to Australia to claim asylum, they are considered "lawful citizens". They remain "lawful citizens" unless their claims for asylum are subsequently rejected. Sucks to be illiterate.  ::) Yes, it must be so difficult for you to be illiterate. If they were considered lawful citizens, then (a) they would need to hold Australian citizenship to be called a "citizen" of Australia and (b) they'd need a passport and visa - both of which they threw overboard...

I'll try and simplify it for stupid ...

You are in a boat coming to Australia, you are not illegal... naval boat stops you and you board the navel boat, you tell the captain you wish to seek asylum in australia, not illegal... the only time one can be illegal is once they are on australian land, but since you have already sought asylum you are NOT ILLEGAL ... do you get it yet dopey????

Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 9:07pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:13pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:08pm: [quote author=NBNMyths link=1363092398/35#35 date=1363165408] Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation".  :-[/quote] I said Australian waters as being a sea installation For a detailed explanation see section 9 Australian waters are not a sea installation, as defined by the act. How about you just admit you've been wrong all this time, and stop embarrassing yourself further? http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s5.html#australian_waters

OK. I get it. You're an idiot.

That doesn't say that Australian Waters are a sea installation. It defines what Australian Waters are for the purpose of building a sea installation.

None of which has anything whatsoever to do with the migration Act, or the definition of a migration zone. For that, it is 100% absolutely clear, that the sea outside a port is not within the migration zone. And since an asylum seeker has done nothing illegal unless they enter the migration zone before they are intercepted, then the vast majority of boat arrivals are not "illegals".


I'll be ending this debate now, because you're either too stupid to understand English, or you're trolling. Either way, you're wasting my time.

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 10:20pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 9:23pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:49pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? Wow, what a dope!!! Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? Sucks to be you!!! Perhaps you need to read the whole thread. To summarise, arrivals are not considered illegal or unlawful under the Act unless they reach the Australian landmass or an Australian port before they are intercepted. If they are intercepted at sea and escorted to Australia to claim asylum, they are considered "lawful citizens". They remain "lawful citizens" unless their claims for asylum are subsequently rejected. Sucks to be illiterate.  ::) Yes, it must be so difficult for you to be illiterate. If they were considered lawful citizens, then (a) they would need to hold Australian citizenship to be called a "citizen" of Australia and (b) they'd need a passport and visa - both of which they threw overboard... I'll try and simplify it for stupid ... You are in a boat coming to Australia, you are not illegal... naval boat stops you and you board the navel boat, you tell the captain you wish to seek asylum in australia, not illegal... the only time one can be illegal is once they are on australian land, but since you have already sought asylum you are NOT ILLEGAL ... do you get it yet dopey????

They are trying to come to Australia without a passport or visa having paid people smugglers tens of thousands of dollars to board those leaky boats. When "intercepted" by the navy, they promptly refuse to turn around and demand to be taken to Australia to claim asylum. The navy can't leave them there under international maritime law and so has an obligation to take them to Christmas Island. Once there, they are detained under our Immigration laws due to not having passports/visas until their claim for asylum is processed. They are detained because it is illegal to enter this (or any) country without a valid passport/visa and this detention only occurs for however long it takes for their claim for asylum to be processed. Once a decision is made, they are either released if their claim is accepted or deported if it is rejected.

I don't know how to dumb this down anymore for such a simpleton as yourself. It really shouldn't be hard to understand, even for the uneducated like you.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 10:46pm:

Some lefties here believe that these people are saying that "claiming asylum" is not illegal therefore it absolve these people from illegally entering Australia. This is despite the Migration Act and Un Refugee convention saying otherwise. We'll put that aside for a second because if they are not illegal then there's no need to deport them. You don't deport someone who is in Australia legally. Back to the story. These illegals are detained as per the Migration Act. The Migration Act also provide prosecutions via the Criminal Code. They have broken out of detention. Any criminals who breaks out of their detention are further prosecuted. So should these illegals now have these breakouts count against them ie they've broken Australian law the second time and the UN Refugee convention requires them to adhere by all laws of the country they are claiming asylum. Quote: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/16348676/five-asylum-seekers-attempt-nauru-escape/ A group of asylum seekers has attempted to escape from the Nauru regional immigration processing centre. The Department of Immigration says five people breached the fences of the Nauru centre yesterday. One man is understood to have made it into town. An Immigration Department spokeswoman says the five detainees were soon returned to the centre. There have also been three new cases of self-harm at the centre. The men are receiving medical care on Nauru. The centre opened in August as part of the Australian Government's plan to deal with irregular boat arrivals, but processing has been delayed. On Tuesday afternoon the Government announced that asylum seekers on Nauru will be able to start the process to apply for refugee status from March 18. Two service providers have been awarded contracts to assist them. The Nauruan justice secretary will decide whether they are valid. The Government says the assistance should not be taken as an indication that offshore arrivals will be considered ahead of those who come to Australia through regular channels.

Asylum seekers don't emerge from the ocean, having swum the ocean.

They paid criminal smugglers for their passages and so, by the country's laws, are crims "after the fact".

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 10:20pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 9:23pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:49pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? Wow, what a dope!!! Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? Sucks to be you!!! Perhaps you need to read the whole thread. To summarise, arrivals are not considered illegal or unlawful under the Act unless they reach the Australian landmass or an Australian port before they are intercepted. If they are intercepted at sea and escorted to Australia to claim asylum, they are considered "lawful citizens". They remain "lawful citizens" unless their claims for asylum are subsequently rejected. Sucks to be illiterate.  ::) Yes, it must be so difficult for you to be illiterate. If they were considered lawful citizens, then (a) they would need to hold Australian citizenship to be called a "citizen" of Australia and (b) they'd need a passport and visa - both of which they threw overboard... I'll try and simplify it for stupid ... You are in a boat coming to Australia, you are not illegal... naval boat stops you and you board the navel boat, you tell the captain you wish to seek asylum in australia, not illegal... the only time one can be illegal is once they are on australian land, but since you have already sought asylum you are NOT ILLEGAL ... do you get it yet dopey????

It is you, J.Smith who is the fool.

If one buys a bottle of whisky from a stolen stock, one is prosecuted.

If smugglers are prosecuted and jailed, they are considered criminals and anyone who pays for a  passage from a smuggler, is also considered a criminal.

It is just that we, Australians, are a "soft touch" for any story, one that can't be proven by the non-show of a passport.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 7:19am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 10:20pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 9:23pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:49pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? Wow, what a dope!!! Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? Sucks to be you!!! Perhaps you need to read the whole thread. To summarise, arrivals are not considered illegal or unlawful under the Act unless they reach the Australian landmass or an Australian port before they are intercepted. If they are intercepted at sea and escorted to Australia to claim asylum, they are considered "lawful citizens". They remain "lawful citizens" unless their claims for asylum are subsequently rejected. Sucks to be illiterate.  ::) Yes, it must be so difficult for you to be illiterate. If they were considered lawful citizens, then (a) they would need to hold Australian citizenship to be called a "citizen" of Australia and (b) they'd need a passport and visa - both of which they threw overboard... I'll try and simplify it for stupid ... You are in a boat coming to Australia, you are not illegal... naval boat stops you and you board the navel boat, you tell the captain you wish to seek asylum in australia, not illegal... the only time one can be illegal is once they are on australian land, but since you have already sought asylum you are NOT ILLEGAL ... do you get it yet dopey???? It is you, J.Smith who is the fool. If one buys a bottle of whisky from a stolen stock, one is prosecuted. If smugglers are prosecuted and jailed, they are considered criminals and anyone who pays for a  passage from a smuggler, is also considered a criminal. It is just that we, Australians, are a "soft touch" for any story, one that can't be proven by the non-show of a passport.

there is nothing illegal about seeking asylum... every legal expert in the country tells the same story and yet you persist with your fantasy , every politician will admit that it is not illegal, everyone of any note will tell you it is not illegal ..and yet you persist .. do you think you know better?

they are not put in detention for committing a crime, they are put in detention until they can be processed, if they didn't put them in detention you would be whinging they are releasing terrorists into the country ... and then you have the hide to call me a fool

admit it, your an idiot.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 7:19am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 10:20pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 9:23pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:49pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? Wow, what a dope!!! Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? Sucks to be you!!! Perhaps you need to read the whole thread. To summarise, arrivals are not considered illegal or unlawful under the Act unless they reach the Australian landmass or an Australian port before they are intercepted. If they are intercepted at sea and escorted to Australia to claim asylum, they are considered "lawful citizens". They remain "lawful citizens" unless their claims for asylum are subsequently rejected. Sucks to be illiterate.  ::) Yes, it must be so difficult for you to be illiterate. If they were considered lawful citizens, then (a) they would need to hold Australian citizenship to be called a "citizen" of Australia and (b) they'd need a passport and visa - both of which they threw overboard... I'll try and simplify it for stupid ... You are in a boat coming to Australia, you are not illegal... naval boat stops you and you board the navel boat, you tell the captain you wish to seek asylum in australia, not illegal... the only time one can be illegal is once they are on australian land, but since you have already sought asylum you are NOT ILLEGAL ... do you get it yet dopey???? It is you, J.Smith who is the fool. If one buys a bottle of whisky from a stolen stock, one is prosecuted. If smugglers are prosecuted and jailed, they are considered criminals and anyone who pays for a  passage from a smuggler, is also considered a criminal. It is just that we, Australians, are a "soft touch" for any story, one that can't be proven by the non-show of a passport.

True, OS. As you uncovered, the Labor Party are even thinking of extending the vote to non-citizens seeking asylum.

What next? Extending the vote to Indonesians? Just think: 250 million potential Labor voters, but why stop there? China and India have over a billion each - a potential goldmine for the ALP.

Talk about dastardly.

once an illegal, always an illegal

should brand it onto their foreheads, casterate them and deport them.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:23pm:

When is something "unlawful" not illegal???

'Unlawful' means not authorized by law.

'Illegal' means forbidden by law.

Something 'illegal' is expressly proscribed by statute, and something 'unlawful' is just not expressly authorised.

A subtle difference that I wouldn't expect you to understand.


Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:23pm:

Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh?

That is 100% incorrect.

Asylum seekers are neither 'illegal' nor 'immigrants'.

Havent we covered this sh*t every single day for the last 900 days....

This is seriously like a couple of guys with dementia.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 6:39am:

When "intercepted" by the navy, they promptly refuse to turn around and demand to be taken to Australia to claim asylum.

No, they claim asylum right there on the spot.

They don't need to be taken anywhere to claim asylum: all they have to do is say "I wish to claim asylum" once they are intercepted and they then become perfectly legal asylum seekers.

Then ... they apply for a protection visa.

Then is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker. 

There is, however, an approval process to go through in order to be granted a protection visa and subsequently become a refugee.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:20pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 5:48am: I can't figure out if Maqqa is the ultimate troll, or just completely retarded. A little from column A, a little from column B.

Let's put it to the PEOPLE - in a poll

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j151/gviz7/vote-1.jpg

Being called a retard by Buzz is kinda like being called short sighted by Stevie Wonder.

State school education wasnt it Buzz?

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 5:35am:

OK. I get it. You're an idiot. That doesn't say that Australian Waters are a sea installation. It defines what Australian Waters are for the purpose of building a sea installation.

So the Migration Act governs how you build a sea installation?  ;D ;D ;D

The idiot is you!!!

Maqqa wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 5:35am: OK. I get it. You're an idiot. That doesn't say that Australian Waters are a sea installation. It defines what Australian Waters are for the purpose of building a sea installation. So the Migration Act governs how you build a sea installation?  ;D ;D ;D The idiot is you!!!

No, moron. The Migration Act doesn't define a sea installation. It says ""sea installation" has the same meaning as in the Sea Installations Act."

Hence, the definition I gave you is from the Sea Installations Act, 1997

So, once again, you're screwed.  :-[

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 1:37pm: [quote author=NBNMyths link=1363092398/47#47 date=1363203340] OK. I get it. You're an idiot. That doesn't say that Australian Waters are a sea installation. It defines what Australian Waters are for the purpose of building a sea installation. So the Migration Act governs how you build a sea installation?  ;D ;D ;D The idiot is you!!!

No, moron. The Migration Act doesn't define a sea installation. It says ""sea installation" has the same meaning as in the Sea Installations Act."

Hence, the definition I gave you is from the Sea Installations Act, 1997

So, once again, you're screwed.  :-[/quote]


I have already indicated this several posts back!!

So the moron is you!!

Maqqa wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 2:08pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 1:37pm: [quote author=NBNMyths link=1363092398/47#47 date=1363203340] OK. I get it. You're an idiot. That doesn't say that Australian Waters are a sea installation. It defines what Australian Waters are for the purpose of building a sea installation. So the Migration Act governs how you build a sea installation?  ;D ;D ;D The idiot is you!!! No, moron. The Migration Act doesn't define a sea installation. It says ""sea installation" has the same meaning as in the Sea Installations Act." Hence, the definition I gave you is from the Sea Installations Act, 1997 So, once again, you're screwed.  :-[/quote] I have already indicated this several posts back!! So the moron is you!!

So what's you're point? The sea is not a sea installation, and it is not part of Australia's migration zone. It is therefore totally irrelevant to whether asylum seekers are "illegals" or not.

Are you ready to admit you were wrong yet, or do you want to continue bringing up irrelevant sections of irrelevant legislation?

The Migration Act is clear. Asylum seekers intercepted at sea and escorted to the Australian migration zone are considered lawful non-citizens under the Migration Act, and therefore cannot be described as "illegals".

Would you like a baby wipe to get that egg of your face?  ;D

The Atheist demons treat asylum seekers and the Australian poor shamefully deliberately seeking to deny them asylum, sanctuary, inclusion and Charity...in doing so they are robbing God...  :(

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 2:32pm:

Would you like a baby wipe to get that egg of your face?  ;D

Maqqa's face is Teflon coated.

He will never admit when he's wrong (there aren't enough hours in the day anyway).

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 2:32pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 2:14pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 2:08pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 1:37pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 5:35am: OK. I get it. You're an idiot. That doesn't say that Australian Waters are a sea installation. It defines what Australian Waters are for the purpose of building a sea installation. So the Migration Act governs how you build a sea installation?  ;D ;D ;D The idiot is you!!! No, moron. The Migration Act doesn't define a sea installation. It says ""sea installation" has the same meaning as in the Sea Installations Act." Hence, the definition I gave you is from the Sea Installations Act, 1997 So, once again, you're screwed.  :-[/quote] I have already indicated this several posts back!! So the moron is you!! So what's you're point? The sea is not a sea installation, and it is not part of Australia's migration zone. It is therefore totally irrelevant to whether asylum seekers are "illegals" or not. Are you ready to admit you were wrong yet, or do you want to continue bringing up irrelevant sections of irrelevant legislation? The Migration Act is clear. Asylum seekers intercepted at sea and escorted to the Australian migration zone are considered lawful citizens under the Migration Act, and therefore cannot be described as "illegals". Would you like a baby wipe to get that egg of your face?  ;D Actually, I'll give you a hand: Section 12 of the Bills Of Exchange Act, 1909 says: [quote]Effect where different parties to bill are the same person              (1)  A bill may be drawn payable to, or to the order of, the drawer; or it may be drawn payable to, or to the order of, the drawee.              (2)  Where, in a bill, drawer and drawee are the same person, or where the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract, the holder may treat the instrument, at his or her option, either as a bill of exchange or as a promissory note.

Therefore, asylum seekers are illegals.  ;D ;D ;D

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 2:36pm:

The Migration Act is clear. Asylum seekers intercepted at sea and escorted to the Australian migration zone are considered lawful citizens under the Migration Act, and therefore cannot be described as "illegals"

Show us where it says this

Maqqa wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 7:18pm:

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 2:36pm: The Migration Act is clear. Asylum seekers intercepted at sea and escorted to the Australian migration zone are considered lawful citizens under the Migration Act, and therefore cannot be described as "illegals" Show us where it says this

I already have (The correct term is lawful non-citizens though, not lawful citizens): http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1363092398/23#23

s42

Quote:

(1)  Subject to subsections (2), (2A) and (3), a non-citizen must not travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect.           (2A)  Subsection (1) does not apply to a non-citizen in relation to travel to Australia:                      (a)  if the travel is by a New Zealand citizen who holds and produces a New Zealand passport that is in force; or                      (b)  if the travel is by a non-citizen who holds and produces a passport that is in force and is endorsed with an authority to reside indefinitely on Norfolk Island; or                      (c)  if:                               (i)  the non-citizen is brought to the migration zone under subsection 245F(9) of this Act or 185(3A) of the Customs Act 1901 ; and                              (ii)  the non-citizen is a person who would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen; or

s245F

Quote:

Powers of officers in respect of people found on detained ships or aircraft              (9)  If an officer detains a ship or aircraft under this section, the officer may:                      (a)  detain any person found on the ship or aircraft and bring the person, or cause the person to be brought, to the migration zone; or

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 8:05pm:

I already have (The correct term is lawful non-citizens though, not lawful citizens): http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1363092398/23#23 s42 Quote: (1)  Subject to subsections (2), (2A) and (3), a non-citizen must not travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect.           (2A)  Subsection (1) does not apply to a non-citizen in relation to travel to Australia:                      (a)  if the travel is by a New Zealand citizen who holds and produces a New Zealand passport that is in force; or                      (b)  if the travel is by a non-citizen who holds and produces a passport that is in force and is endorsed with an authority to reside indefinitely on Norfolk Island; or                      (c)  if:                               (i)  the non-citizen is brought to the migration zone under subsection 245F(9) of this Act or 185(3A) of the Customs Act 1901 ; and                              (ii)  the non-citizen is a person who would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen; or s245F [quote]Powers of officers in respect of people found on detained ships or aircraft              (9)  If an officer detains a ship or aircraft under this section, the officer may:                      (a)  detain any person found on the ship or aircraft and bring the person, or cause the person to be brought, to the migration zone; or

[/quote]

Can you show us the term lawful non-citizen?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? 'Unlawful' means not authorized by law. 'Illegal' means forbidden by law. Something 'illegal' is expressly proscribed by statute, and something 'unlawful' is just not expressly authorised. A subtle difference that I wouldn't expect you to understand. Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? That is 100% incorrect. Asylum seekers are neither 'illegal' nor 'immigrants'.

Okay, lets humour you. If we say that they are not immigrants then we're getting somewhere. By definition, a person seeking asylum is not necessarily seeking permanent resettlement. A true asylum seeker is looking for a safe haven until their homeland is safe to return to. That isn't the case with these people who come in the tens of thousands by boat. They seek to stay because - as they put it - life is better here. Can't say I blame them for wanting to live here, but there is a proper process for moving here and they are abusing it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 11:39am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:39am: When "intercepted" by the navy, they promptly refuse to turn around and demand to be taken to Australia to claim asylum. No, they claim asylum right there on the spot. They don't need to be taken anywhere to claim asylum: all they have to do is say "I wish to claim asylum" once they are intercepted and they then become perfectly legal asylum seekers. Then ... they apply for a protection visa. Then is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.  There is, however, an approval process to go through in order to be granted a protection visa and subsequently become a refugee.

Yep, they claim asylum and are detained for having illegally attempted to enter Australia or its territories without a valid passport or visa. This detention continues until they are either given asylum or deported when their claim is rejected. Call them asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, whatever. In this particular instance, those people arriving by boat are illegal immigrants.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:39am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:39am: When "intercepted" by the navy, they promptly refuse to turn around and demand to be taken to Australia to claim asylum. No, they claim asylum right there on the spot. They don't need to be taken anywhere to claim asylum: all they have to do is say "I wish to claim asylum" once they are intercepted and they then become perfectly legal asylum seekers. Then ... they apply for a protection visa. Then is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.  There is, however, an approval process to go through in order to be granted a protection visa and subsequently become a refugee. Yep, they claim asylum and are detained for having illegally attempted to enter Australia or its territories without a valid passport or visa. This detention continues until they are either given asylum or deported when their claim is rejected. Call them asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, whatever. In this particular instance, those people arriving by boat are illegal immigrants.

Boat arrivals are called "irregular maritime arrivals" or "unauthorised boat arrivals" Till they request asylum (a short period of time) at which point they become Asylum seekers. The large percentage who are then processed successfully are then refugees. those who fail the test become illegal imigrants and are deported.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 10:07pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:39am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:39am: When "intercepted" by the navy, they promptly refuse to turn around and demand to be taken to Australia to claim asylum. No, they claim asylum right there on the spot. They don't need to be taken anywhere to claim asylum: all they have to do is say "I wish to claim asylum" once they are intercepted and they then become perfectly legal asylum seekers. Then ... they apply for a protection visa. Then is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.  There is, however, an approval process to go through in order to be granted a protection visa and subsequently become a refugee. Yep, they claim asylum and are detained for having illegally attempted to enter Australia or its territories without a valid passport or visa. This detention continues until they are either given asylum or deported when their claim is rejected. Call them asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, whatever. In this particular instance, those people arriving by boat are illegal immigrants. Boat arrivals are called "irregular maritime arrivals" or "unauthorised boat arrivals" Till they request asylum (a short period of time) at which point they become Asylum seekers. The large percentage who are then processed successfully are then refugees. those who fail the test become illegal imigrants and are deported.

Yeah, nah... They're ALL illegal immigrants until their request for asylum is granted. If it's rejected, they are deported as illegal immigrants. I can see where this simple distinction would trip up a simpleton like you.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:54am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 10:07pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:39am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:39am: When "intercepted" by the navy, they promptly refuse to turn around and demand to be taken to Australia to claim asylum. No, they claim asylum right there on the spot. They don't need to be taken anywhere to claim asylum: all they have to do is say "I wish to claim asylum" once they are intercepted and they then become perfectly legal asylum seekers. Then ... they apply for a protection visa. Then is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.  There is, however, an approval process to go through in order to be granted a protection visa and subsequently become a refugee. Yep, they claim asylum and are detained for having illegally attempted to enter Australia or its territories without a valid passport or visa. This detention continues until they are either given asylum or deported when their claim is rejected. Call them asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, whatever. In this particular instance, those people arriving by boat are illegal immigrants. Boat arrivals are called "irregular maritime arrivals" or "unauthorised boat arrivals" Till they request asylum (a short period of time) at which point they become Asylum seekers. The large percentage who are then processed successfully are then refugees. those who fail the test become illegal imigrants and are deported. Yeah, nah... They're ALL illegal immigrants until their request for asylum is granted. If it's rejected, they are deported as illegal immigrants. I can see where this simple distinction would trip up a simpleton like you.

No they arent. They arent even immigrants. They arent even in australia!

SOB

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:54am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 10:07pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:39am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:39am: When "intercepted" by the navy, they promptly refuse to turn around and demand to be taken to Australia to claim asylum. No, they claim asylum right there on the spot. They don't need to be taken anywhere to claim asylum: all they have to do is say "I wish to claim asylum" once they are intercepted and they then become perfectly legal asylum seekers. Then ... they apply for a protection visa. Then is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.  There is, however, an approval process to go through in order to be granted a protection visa and subsequently become a refugee. Yep, they claim asylum and are detained for having illegally attempted to enter Australia or its territories without a valid passport or visa. This detention continues until they are either given asylum or deported when their claim is rejected. Call them asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, whatever. In this particular instance, those people arriving by boat are illegal immigrants. Boat arrivals are called "irregular maritime arrivals" or "unauthorised boat arrivals" Till they request asylum (a short period of time) at which point they become Asylum seekers. The large percentage who are then processed successfully are then refugees. those who fail the test become illegal imigrants and are deported. Yeah, nah... They're ALL illegal immigrants until their request for asylum is granted. If it's rejected, they are deported as illegal immigrants. I can see where this simple distinction would trip up a simpleton like you.

you are a jackass.

John Smith wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 8:55am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 7:54am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 10:07pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:39am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:39am: When "intercepted" by the navy, they promptly refuse to turn around and demand to be taken to Australia to claim asylum. No, they claim asylum right there on the spot. They don't need to be taken anywhere to claim asylum: all they have to do is say "I wish to claim asylum" once they are intercepted and they then become perfectly legal asylum seekers. Then ... they apply for a protection visa. Then is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.  There is, however, an approval process to go through in order to be granted a protection visa and subsequently become a refugee. Yep, they claim asylum and are detained for having illegally attempted to enter Australia or its territories without a valid passport or visa. This detention continues until they are either given asylum or deported when their claim is rejected. Call them asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, whatever. In this particular instance, those people arriving by boat are illegal immigrants. Boat arrivals are called "irregular maritime arrivals" or "unauthorised boat arrivals" Till they request asylum (a short period of time) at which point they become Asylum seekers. The large percentage who are then processed successfully are then refugees. those who fail the test become illegal imigrants and are deported. Yeah, nah... They're ALL illegal immigrants until their request for asylum is granted. If it's rejected, they are deported as illegal immigrants. I can see where this simple distinction would trip up a simpleton like you. you are a jackass.

Takes one to know one...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 9:00am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 8:55am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 7:54am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 10:07pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:39am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:39am: When "intercepted" by the navy, they promptly refuse to turn around and demand to be taken to Australia to claim asylum. No, they claim asylum right there on the spot. They don't need to be taken anywhere to claim asylum: all they have to do is say "I wish to claim asylum" once they are intercepted and they then become perfectly legal asylum seekers. Then ... they apply for a protection visa. Then is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.  There is, however, an approval process to go through in order to be granted a protection visa and subsequently become a refugee. Yep, they claim asylum and are detained for having illegally attempted to enter Australia or its territories without a valid passport or visa. This detention continues until they are either given asylum or deported when their claim is rejected. Call them asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, whatever. In this particular instance, those people arriving by boat are illegal immigrants. Boat arrivals are called "irregular maritime arrivals" or "unauthorised boat arrivals" Till they request asylum (a short period of time) at which point they become Asylum seekers. The large percentage who are then processed successfully are then refugees. those who fail the test become illegal imigrants and are deported. Yeah, nah... They're ALL illegal immigrants until their request for asylum is granted. If it's rejected, they are deported as illegal immigrants. I can see where this simple distinction would trip up a simpleton like you. you are a jackass. Takes one to know one...

Did you think that one up all by yourself? I bet you had help .....

What's that now?

Five posts in a row just abusing the poster?

Enlightening Johnny.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:39am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:39am: When "intercepted" by the navy, they promptly refuse to turn around and demand to be taken to Australia to claim asylum. No, they claim asylum right there on the spot. They don't need to be taken anywhere to claim asylum: all they have to do is say "I wish to claim asylum" once they are intercepted and they then become perfectly legal asylum seekers. Then ... they apply for a protection visa. Then is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.  There is, however, an approval process to go through in order to be granted a protection visa and subsequently become a refugee. Yep, they claim asylum and are detained for having illegally attempted to enter Australia or its territories without a valid passport or visa. This detention continues until they are either given asylum or deported when their claim is rejected. Call them asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, whatever. In this particular instance, those people arriving by boat are illegal immigrants.

100% incorrect.

Not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's all bad.

Sorry.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 8:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:27am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? 'Unlawful' means not authorized by law. 'Illegal' means forbidden by law. Something 'illegal' is expressly proscribed by statute, and something 'unlawful' is just not expressly authorised. A subtle difference that I wouldn't expect you to understand. Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? That is 100% incorrect. Asylum seekers are neither 'illegal' nor 'immigrants'. Okay, lets humour you. If we say that they are not immigrants then we're getting somewhere. By definition, a person seeking asylum is not necessarily seeking permanent resettlement. A true asylum seeker is looking for a safe haven until their homeland is safe to return to. That isn't the case with these people who come in the tens of thousands by boat. They seek to stay because - as they put it - life is better here. Can't say I blame them for wanting to live here, but there is a proper process for moving here and they are abusing it.

No, they're not abusing any "proper process".

Asylum seeking is a perfectly valid and legal component of Australia's Humanitarian Program.

You may wish to do a little research on this subject.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:54am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 10:07pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:39am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:39am: When "intercepted" by the navy, they promptly refuse to turn around and demand to be taken to Australia to claim asylum. No, they claim asylum right there on the spot. They don't need to be taken anywhere to claim asylum: all they have to do is say "I wish to claim asylum" once they are intercepted and they then become perfectly legal asylum seekers. Then ... they apply for a protection visa. Then is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.  There is, however, an approval process to go through in order to be granted a protection visa and subsequently become a refugee. Yep, they claim asylum and are detained for having illegally attempted to enter Australia or its territories without a valid passport or visa. This detention continues until they are either given asylum or deported when their claim is rejected. Call them asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, whatever. In this particular instance, those people arriving by boat are illegal immigrants. Boat arrivals are called "irregular maritime arrivals" or "unauthorised boat arrivals" Till they request asylum (a short period of time) at which point they become Asylum seekers. The large percentage who are then processed successfully are then refugees. those who fail the test become illegal immigrants and are deported. Yeah, nah... They're ALL illegal immigrants until their request for asylum is granted. If it's rejected, they are deported as illegal immigrants. I can see where this simple distinction would trip up a simpleton like you.

Often the insult has more to say about the quality and or intelligence of the poster.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

What's that now? Five posts in a row just abusing the poster? Enlightening Johnny.

keeping count are you?

d!ckhead (opps, I guess thats 6)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

Call them asylum seekers or illegal immigrants, whatever.

No, it's not a case of "whatever".

Those are two completely different things.

Asylum seekers aren't illegal immigrants, no matter what their mode of transport.

Seriously, I think we need some more threads on illegal boat people.

I don't think we have enough.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

Seriously, I think we need some more threads on illegal boat people. I don't think we have enough.

What are "illegal boat people"?

People speeding on Sydney Harbour?

http://www.bigthanks.com.au/media/experiences/TJBN3.294x232.jpg

You know what I mean.

I don;t really care for them all that much, just keep them out of my suburb.

The only thing I always wonder is why is it all they ever seem able to do is drive a cab?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

Seriously, I think we need some more threads on illegal boat people. I don't think we have enough.

There are many more threads about it then there are actual illegal boat people.

You could probably assign a thread individually to each one and then delete the other 300 unused threads.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:38am:

You know what I mean. I don;t really care for them all that much, just keep them out of my suburb. The only thing I always wonder is why is it all they ever seem able to do is drive a cab?

It was the same in the 70's for the asians and groups before that. problem is that most of their qualifications and experience do not count in Australia. Their children and future generations tend to contribute big time.

Very probable that this group will be the same, not like the useless pommy pilots we took from the 60's or 70's.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 9:35am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:53pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:27am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? 'Unlawful' means not authorized by law. 'Illegal' means forbidden by law. Something 'illegal' is expressly proscribed by statute, and something 'unlawful' is just not expressly authorised. A subtle difference that I wouldn't expect you to understand. Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? That is 100% incorrect. Asylum seekers are neither 'illegal' nor 'immigrants'. Okay, lets humour you. If we say that they are not immigrants then we're getting somewhere. By definition, a person seeking asylum is not necessarily seeking permanent resettlement. A true asylum seeker is looking for a safe haven until their homeland is safe to return to. That isn't the case with these people who come in the tens of thousands by boat. They seek to stay because - as they put it - life is better here. Can't say I blame them for wanting to live here, but there is a proper process for moving here and they are abusing it. No, they're not abusing any "proper process". Asylum seeking is a perfectly valid and legal component of Australia's Humanitarian Program. You may wish to do a little research on this subject.

Australia has a very generous refugee intake program. These people are abusing it by flying into Indonesia with a passport and visa on international flights with the sole purpose of paying people smugglers to board leaking boats for a dangerous voyage to come here. Not only do they throw their passports and identifying documents overboard, they breach UNHCR rules on what constitutes a refugee by passing through a safe country on their way here. That voids their claim for asylum. So not only do they take the place of genuine refugees suffering in UN camps with little or no security, food and health care, they do not even meet the UN's own criteria for claiming asylum. Besides all that, asylum seekers generally request asylum as a safe haven until their country is safe to return to. These people are still on welfare years after arriving, creating a massive drain on government revenue. To top it all off, this mess is entirely of Labor's making from way back in 2008 when Rudd scrapped a policy that was clearly working - the Pacific Solution. So any way you look at it, your position is that of a first-class loser!  :)

These people!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 9:35am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:53pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 11:27am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: When is something "unlawful" not illegal??? 'Unlawful' means not authorized by law. 'Illegal' means forbidden by law. Something 'illegal' is expressly proscribed by statute, and something 'unlawful' is just not expressly authorised. A subtle difference that I wouldn't expect you to understand. Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13th, 2013 at 7:23pm: Just can't get your head around the FACT they are illegal immigrants, eh? That is 100% incorrect. Asylum seekers are neither 'illegal' nor 'immigrants'. Okay, lets humour you. If we say that they are not immigrants then we're getting somewhere. By definition, a person seeking asylum is not necessarily seeking permanent resettlement. A true asylum seeker is looking for a safe haven until their homeland is safe to return to. That isn't the case with these people who come in the tens of thousands by boat. They seek to stay because - as they put it - life is better here. Can't say I blame them for wanting to live here, but there is a proper process for moving here and they are abusing it. No, they're not abusing any "proper process". Asylum seeking is a perfectly valid and legal component of Australia's Humanitarian Program. You may wish to do a little research on this subject. Australia has a very generous refugee intake program. These people are abusing it by flying into Indonesia with a passport and visa on international flights with the sole purpose of paying people smugglers to board leaking boats for a dangerous voyage to come here. Not only do they throw their passports and identifying documents overboard, they breach UNHCR rules on what constitutes a refugee by passing through a safe country on their way here. That voids their claim for asylum. So not only do they take the place of genuine refugees suffering in UN camps with little or no security, food and health care, they do not even meet the UN's own criteria for claiming asylum. Besides all that, asylum seekers generally request asylum as a safe haven until their country is safe to return to. These people are still on welfare years after arriving, creating a massive drain on government revenue. To top it all off, this mess is entirely of Labor's making from way back in 2008 when Rudd scrapped a policy that was clearly working - the Pacific Solution. So any way you look at it, your position is that of a first-class loser!  :)

I'm merely presenting the official position of the Government.  You know, the people who make the laws?

Asylum seeking is a perfectly valid and legal component of Australia's Humanitarian Program.

If you can't handle the facts, that's your problem.

Slinging personal abuse isn't going to give your "argument" any validity.

Lets look at this issue in stages

ANYONE wishing to cross Australian borders (which is over water because Aust is an island) needs a VISA ie an entry permit.

A VISA is an identifier of people wishing to enter/stay in Aust as well as their reason for being in Aust.

For citizens
Your passport is your VISA back into Australia.

For non-citizens
You must apply for this entry permit. The essential elements of a VISA application is who are you and why are you here.

Application of a VISA
Can be done in your own country, a neighbouring country or at the border.

So the above are the basics of entering Australia.

Next comes the asylum issue.

The asylum issue usually cross over to the VISA issue where the person claiming asylum makes a claim at the border.

People need to be aware of the different laws applying as a person moving from one side of the border to another

Crossing Aust borders without a VISA is illegal under the Migration Act s4 and is subject to deportation

Officers under this Act are allowed to suspend deportation if the person ask for a VISA at the border based on asylum under the UN Refugee convention

At this stage - they still do not have a VISA ie they do not have an entry permit. Therefore they are still are in Australia illegally.

You are not assumed to be an asylum seeker just because you submit a claim. All claims made must be verified.

Once verified - you are given the asylum seeker status. You then use this status to include in your VISA application and you are issued with a VISA based on this status.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

You are not assumed to be an asylum seeker just because you submit a claim.

Yes, you are.

However, you are not assumed to be a refugee.

Once again you are confusing the two terms.

There is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 2:50pm: You are not assumed to be an asylum seeker just because you submit a claim. Yes, you are. However, you are not assumed to be a refugee. Once again you are confusing the two terms. There is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.

Asylum claim - seeking/claiming protection/shelter from anything

This claim needs to be verified

Refugee - is a person whose is fleeing persecution and they are claiming asylum in that country

Therefore in context of refugee - an asylum claim is a claim for protection based on refugee criteria

So it seems you are confusing asylum seeker with refugee

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:00pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 2:50pm: You are not assumed to be an asylum seeker just because you submit a claim. Yes, you are. However, you are not assumed to be a refugee. Once again you are confusing the two terms. There is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker. Asylum claim - seeking/claiming protection/shelter from anything This claim needs to be verified Refugee - is a person whose is fleeing persecution and they are claiming asylum in that country Therefore in context of refugee - an asylum claim is a claim for protection based on refugee criteria So it seems you are confusing asylum seeker with refugee

Call em what you like Maqqa but its not illegal to escape persecution and claim asylum in another country.
It happens many times a day all over the world.

adelcrow wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 3:20pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:00pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 2:50pm: You are not assumed to be an asylum seeker just because you submit a claim. Yes, you are. However, you are not assumed to be a refugee. Once again you are confusing the two terms. There is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker. Asylum claim - seeking/claiming protection/shelter from anything This claim needs to be verified Refugee - is a person whose is fleeing persecution and they are claiming asylum in that country Therefore in context of refugee - an asylum claim is a claim for protection based on refugee criteria So it seems you are confusing asylum seeker with refugee Call em what you like Maqqa but its not illegal to escape persecution and claim asylum in another country. It happens many times a day all over the world.

never said it was

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:00pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 2:50pm: You are not assumed to be an asylum seeker just because you submit a claim. Yes, you are. However, you are not assumed to be a refugee. Once again you are confusing the two terms. There is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker. Asylum claim - seeking/claiming protection/shelter from anything This claim needs to be verified Refugee - is a person whose is fleeing persecution and they are claiming asylum in that country Therefore in context of refugee - an asylum claim is a claim for protection based on refugee criteria So it seems you are confusing asylum seeker with refugee

No I would say it is you who seems to confuse illegal with everything.

An asylum seeker is not an illegal and neither is a refugee.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

No I would say it is you who seems to confuse illegal with everything. An asylum seeker is not an illegal and neither is a refugee.

You are now going around and around

You have given them the title "asylum seeker" as it their asylum claim have been verified

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:00pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 2:50pm: You are not assumed to be an asylum seeker just because you submit a claim. Yes, you are. However, you are not assumed to be a refugee. Once again you are confusing the two terms. There is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker. Asylum claim - seeking/claiming protection/shelter from anything This claim needs to be verified Refugee - is a person whose is fleeing persecution and they are claiming asylum in that country Therefore in context of refugee - an asylum claim is a claim for protection based on refugee criteria So it seems you are confusing asylum seeker with refugee

Nope, I'm not confused about anything.

I know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee.

I know the difference between illegal and unlawful.

I know the difference between a superseded Act and a current Act.

And, I know the difference between an alien and an illegal alien.

Get back to me when you can say the same, and we'll talk   ;)

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 2:32pm:

The Migration Act is clear. Asylum seekers intercepted at sea and escorted to the Australian migration zone are considered lawful non-citizens under the Migration Act, and therefore cannot be described as "illegals". Would you like a baby wipe to get that egg of your face?  ;D

Quote:

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 13 Lawful non-citizens              (1)  A non-citizen in the migration zone who holds a visa that is in effect is a lawful non-citizen.

NBNMyth - in the posts claims the Migration Act says if you are escorted to the migration zone then you become a lawful non-citizen

Yet I have provided the exact wordings in the Act and it clearly states you need a VISA

You better use that wipe on your face NBNMyth

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

Nope, I'm not confused about anything. I know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee.

Do tell with references

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 3:56pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:34pm: No I would say it is you who seems to confuse illegal with everything. An asylum seeker is not an illegal and neither is a refugee. You are now going around and around You have given them the title "asylum seeker" as it their asylum claim have been verified

Their status as an asylum seeker doesn't have to be verified Maqqa.

Their status as a refugee, however, does have to be verified.

You're still getting the two confused Maqqa.

To become an asylum seeker: no application or verification required.

To become a refugee: application and verification is required.

Asylum seekers make a claim to be verified as a refugee, not to be verified as an asylum seeker.

By merely stating "I claim asylum" they become asylum seekers.

This isn't difficult Maqqa.  Why are you still struggling?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 4:43pm:

Their status as an asylum seeker doesn't have to be verified Maqqa. Their status as a refugee, however, does have to be verified.

Their claim of being persecuted needs to be verified

Once it's been verified - they are given that status

They will use that status to obtain a VISA

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:58pm: Nope, I'm not confused about anything. I know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee. Do tell with references

bump

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 5:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 4:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:58pm: Nope, I'm not confused about anything. I know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee. Do tell with references bump

To become an asylum seeker: no application or verification required.

To become a refugee: application and verification is required.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 5:28pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 4:43pm: Their status as an asylum seeker doesn't have to be verified Maqqa. Their status as a refugee, however, does have to be verified. Their claim of being persecuted needs to be verified Once it's been verified - they are given that status They will use that status to obtain a VISA

Asylum seekers make a claim to be verified as a refugee, not to be verified as an asylum seeker.

By merely stating "I claim asylum" they become asylum seekers.  No verification required.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 4:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:58pm: Nope, I'm not confused about anything. I know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee. Do tell with references bump To become an asylum seeker: no application or verification required. To become a refugee: application and verification is required.

So if no verification is needed - then how do you know they require asylum?

and is this the current position by Australian laws whereby there's no need to verify their asylum claims and accept all asylum claims as truthful?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 5:28pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 4:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:58pm: Nope, I'm not confused about anything. I know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee. Do tell with references bump

Now I know you're just trolling.

Nobody could be as thick as you are acting.

I'm finished with you now Maqqa.

Here's a reference:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/62assistance.htm#a

Now read it, learn it, and don't come back until you understand it.

'In countries with discrete refugee assessment procedures, an asylum seeker is someone whose claim for protection has not been decided by the country in which she or he has submitted their claim. Not every asylum seeker will ultimately be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker.'

"claim for protection" Maqqa.  Read it very carefully.

It does not say "claim to become an asylum seeker".

Why not?  Because one does not need their claim as an asylum seeker to be "decided". They just say "I'm claiming asylum" and they are an asylum seeker.

Good day to you sir, and wipe the egg off your face on the way out.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:29pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 4:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:58pm: Nope, I'm not confused about anything. I know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee. Do tell with references bump To become an asylum seeker: no application or verification required. To become a refugee: application and verification is required. So if no verification is needed - then how do you know they require asylum?

They open their mouths and say "I'm seeking asylum".

::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 4:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:58pm: Nope, I'm not confused about anything. I know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee. Do tell with references bump Now I know you're just trolling. Nobody could be as thick as you are acting. I'm finished with you now Maqqa. Here's a reference: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/62assistance.htm#a Now read it, learn it, and don't come back until you understand it. 'In countries with discrete refugee assessment procedures, an asylum seeker is someone whose claim for protection has not been decided by the country in which she or he has submitted their claim. Not every asylum seeker will ultimately be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker.' "claim for protection" Maqqa.  Read it very carefully. It does not say "claim to become an asylum seeker". Why not?  Because one does not need their claim as an asylum seeker to be "decided". They just say "I'm claiming asylum" and they are an asylum seeker. Good day to you sir, and wipe the egg off your face on the way out.

before making that claim

they would have entered Australia illegally

in addition - the quote is a definition by the UN Commission

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 5:53pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:29pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 4:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:58pm: Nope, I'm not confused about anything. I know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee. Do tell with references bump To become an asylum seeker: no application or verification required. To become a refugee: application and verification is required. So if no verification is needed - then how do you know they require asylum? They open their mouths and say "I'm seeking asylum". ::)

Quote:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/62assistance.htm#a In the Australian context, an asylum seeker is an applicant for a protection visa

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

and is this the current position by Australian laws whereby there's no need to verify their asylum claims and accept all asylum claims as truthful?

They are verified as an asylum seeker as soon as they say "I'm seeking asylum". 

They are not, however, verified as a refugee.  That's why they are detained and processed.

::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 6:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:52pm: and is this the current position by Australian laws whereby there's no need to verify their asylum claims and accept all asylum claims as truthful? They are verified as an asylum seeker as soon as they say "I'm seeking asylum".  They are not, however, verified as a refugee.  That's why they are detained and processed. ::)

You say there are no application - but your source say different  ;D ;D


Quote:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#e Applicants are expected to put their claims in writing.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:01pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:52pm: and is this the current position by Australian laws whereby there's no need to verify their asylum claims and accept all asylum claims as truthful? They are verified as an asylum seeker as soon as they say "I'm seeking asylum".  They are not, however, verified as a refugee.  That's why they are detained and processed. ::) You say there are no application - but your source say different  ;D ;D Quote: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#e Applicants are expected to put their claims in writing.

OMG, you can not be that stupid.

That's a claim for a protection visa, i.e. a claim to become a refugee.

Not a claim to become an asylum seeker.

Read it: "Applications for protection visas ... "

It does not say "Applications to become an asylum seeker ... "  does it Maqqa?    ::)

Stop trolling.

If they come to Australia via the smugglers route, the government should not accept resettlement in Australia for those who arrive via such means.
Process the refugee claim certainly, keep them in detention certainly.
But they don't get to live in the community, fill our dole queue and be a burden, they can do that elsewhere.
That will drive the country shoppers to go somewhere else quick smart, and break the smugglers business model.
And Australia can get back to accepting real refugees from real refugee camps.
It's time the kid gloves came off, but it won't be up to Labor though.
They are simply incompetent and incapable of protecting our borders.

I wonder when exactly people will recognise that this anti 'boat/refugee' policy not only cost the LNP in 2007, it also saw, for only the second time, a Prime Minister lose his own seat?

Has the message not yet got through?

;)

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 6:05pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:01pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:52pm: and is this the current position by Australian laws whereby there's no need to verify their asylum claims and accept all asylum claims as truthful? They are verified as an asylum seeker as soon as they say "I'm seeking asylum".  They are not, however, verified as a refugee.  That's why they are detained and processed. ::) You say there are no application - but your source say different  ;D ;D Quote: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#e Applicants are expected to put their claims in writing.

you really are the epitome of stupid ....

John Smith wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:01pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:52pm: and is this the current position by Australian laws whereby there's no need to verify their asylum claims and accept all asylum claims as truthful? They are verified as an asylum seeker as soon as they say "I'm seeking asylum".  They are not, however, verified as a refugee.  That's why they are detained and processed. ::) You say there are no application - but your source say different  ;D ;D Quote: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#e Applicants are expected to put their claims in writing. you really are the epitome of stupid ....

WTF are you on about jecksit

it was pecker's reference that shot him down

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 6:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:01pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:52pm: and is this the current position by Australian laws whereby there's no need to verify their asylum claims and accept all asylum claims as truthful? They are verified as an asylum seeker as soon as they say "I'm seeking asylum".  They are not, however, verified as a refugee.  That's why they are detained and processed. ::) You say there are no application - but your source say different  ;D ;D Quote: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#e Applicants are expected to put their claims in writing. OMG, you can not be that stupid. That's a claim for a protection visa, i.e. a claim to become a refugee. Not a claim to become an asylum seeker. Read it: "Applications for protection visas ... " It does not say "Applications to become an asylum seeker ... "  does it Maqqa?    ::) Stop trolling.

The Aust government says that an asylum seeker is applying for a protection VISA

So if you don't want asylum - then FO

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:52pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:28pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 4:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 3:58pm: Nope, I'm not confused about anything. I know the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee. Do tell with references bump Now I know you're just trolling. Nobody could be as thick as you are acting. I'm finished with you now Maqqa. Here's a reference: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/62assistance.htm#a Now read it, learn it, and don't come back until you understand it. 'In countries with discrete refugee assessment procedures, an asylum seeker is someone whose claim for protection has not been decided by the country in which she or he has submitted their claim. Not every asylum seeker will ultimately be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker.' "claim for protection" Maqqa.  Read it very carefully. It does not say "claim to become an asylum seeker". Why not?  Because one does not need their claim as an asylum seeker to be "decided". They just say "I'm claiming asylum" and they are an asylum seeker. Good day to you sir, and wipe the egg off your face on the way out. before making that claim they would have entered Australia illegally in addition - the quote is a definition by the UN Commission

Nope. They havent entered australia.

SOB

Maqqa should read the articles in his gotcha threads a tad more carefully.

If this government had the guts, they'd send the lot back. The UNHCR says if anyone transits through a safe country to another country to seek asylum, their actions void the claim for asylum. So by hopping onto a PIA flight to Indonesia and then passing through Customs & Immigration and then paying a people smuggler to board one of their boats, they are contravening what the UN defines as a genuine asylum seeker. Not only that, but a genuine asylum seeker would want to return home when their country is safe. These people are still on welfare 5 years or more after arriving and have no intention of returning to their homeland. Bring back TPV's and watch those numbers freefall, because TPV's do not guarantee permanent residency, only temporary safe haven, which is what being an asylum seeker is all about!

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 10:09pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 8:59pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:01pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:52pm: and is this the current position by Australian laws whereby there's no need to verify their asylum claims and accept all asylum claims as truthful? They are verified as an asylum seeker as soon as they say "I'm seeking asylum".  They are not, however, verified as a refugee.  That's why they are detained and processed. ::) You say there are no application - but your source say different  ;D ;D Quote: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#e Applicants are expected to put their claims in writing. you really are the epitome of stupid .... WTF are you on about jecksit it was pecker's reference that shot him down

the only one shot down was you ... like I said ... STUPID

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 6:55am:

If this government had the guts, they'd send the lot back. The UNHCR says if anyone transits through a safe country to another country to seek asylum, their actions void the claim for asylum. So by hopping onto a PIA flight to Indonesia and then passing through Customs & Immigration and then paying a people smuggler to board one of their boats, they are contravening what the UN defines as a genuine asylum seeker. Not only that, but a genuine asylum seeker would want to return home when their country is safe. These people are still on welfare 5 years or more after arriving and have no intention of returning to their homeland. Bring back TPV's and watch those numbers freefall, because TPV's do not guarantee permanent residency, only temporary safe haven, which is what being an asylum seeker is all about!

Actually you are wrong.

John Smith wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 9:20am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:09pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 8:59pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:01pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:52pm: and is this the current position by Australian laws whereby there's no need to verify their asylum claims and accept all asylum claims as truthful? They are verified as an asylum seeker as soon as they say "I'm seeking asylum".  They are not, however, verified as a refugee.  That's why they are detained and processed. ::) You say there are no application - but your source say different  ;D ;D Quote: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#e Applicants are expected to put their claims in writing. you really are the epitome of stupid .... WTF are you on about jecksit it was pecker's reference that shot him down the only one shot down was you ... like I said ... STUPID

Macca being pedantic on a nothing point which he has misinterpreted.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 9:20am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:09pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 8:59pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:01pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:52pm: and is this the current position by Australian laws whereby there's no need to verify their asylum claims and accept all asylum claims as truthful? They are verified as an asylum seeker as soon as they say "I'm seeking asylum".  They are not, however, verified as a refugee.  That's why they are detained and processed. ::) You say there are no application - but your source say different  ;D ;D Quote: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#e Applicants are expected to put their claims in writing. you really are the epitome of stupid .... WTF are you on about jecksit it was pecker's reference that shot him down the only one shot down was you ... like I said ... STUPID Macca being pedantic on a nothing point which he has misinterpreted.

he does that a lot ... concentrates on one word but misses the rest of the paragraph

the old saying 'can't see the forest through the trees' comes to mind

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 9:20am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:09pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 8:59pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:05pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 6:01pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 5:52pm: and is this the current position by Australian laws whereby there's no need to verify their asylum claims and accept all asylum claims as truthful? They are verified as an asylum seeker as soon as they say "I'm seeking asylum".  They are not, however, verified as a refugee.  That's why they are detained and processed. ::) You say there are no application - but your source say different  ;D ;D Quote: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#e Applicants are expected to put their claims in writing. you really are the epitome of stupid .... WTF are you on about jecksit it was pecker's reference that shot him down the only one shot down was you ... like I said ... STUPID Macca being pedantic on a nothing point which he has misinterpreted.

So you lose out and now you call me pedantic  ;D ;D

Illegal schmeegal.
Turning up on another countries border to gain entry via smugglers is illegal.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 9:26am: Macca being pedantic on a nothing point which he has misinterpreted. So you lose out and now you call me pedantic

You were clearly wrong as usual?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Illegal schmeegal. Turning up on another countries border to gain entry via smugglers is illegal.

Sorry but that statment is untrue.