More than 100 Afghan asylum seekers could have their failed refugee assessments reviewed after a court ruled that former immigration minister Chris Bowen had illegally ordered one man's removal to Afghanistan.
The Federal Court on Wednesday spared the man's removal to Afghanistan after he had spent about two years in detention.
All five judges on the bench described former immigration minister Chris Bowen's handling of the case of a Hazara, detained for more than two years, as ''disturbing''.
They declared Mr Bowen's decision invalid and restrained Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor from removing the man ''until the claims for protection … have been assessed according to law''. The court also declared that his previous refugee assessment had not been carried out lawfully.
The decision is a setback for the government's hopes of using the involuntary return of ''failed'' asylum seekers to deter more arrivals.
The Hazara man, 34, arrived in 2010, claiming that the Taliban would kill him if he returned. He was scheduled to be flown to Afghanistan last September, having failed his refugee assessments.
Mr Bowen then had personal legal powers to grant him a visa if it was in the public interest. But on the same day that he was asked to decide whether to use these powers, he said he would not consider it, even if he was wrong and even if the assessments of the man were factually or legally wrong.
The minister's lawyers later argued that offshore entry persons did not have a right to compel him to use his powers, which were discretionary and not subject to judicial or parliamentary review.
The court held exercising those powers would ''[require] a decision-maker to hear and genuinely take into account what he has been told'', for procedural fairness. ''An opportunity to speak to a decision-maker who does not listen is no opportunity at all.''
Victor Harcourt, principal of public law at Russell Kennedy, which represented the man, said: ''This decision will have an immediate and significant impact on 100 or more other Afghan asylum seekers that we know to be in a similar position to our client.''
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre's spokeswoman, Pamela Curr, said the decision showed ''toxic politics does not reign supreme and the rule of law and justice still have a chance''.
Afghans comprise the second-biggest ethnic group with 2286 arrivals this year, including more than 200 who arrived on three boats this week.
A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor said the federal government's lawyers were reviewing the judgment.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/court-scolds-bowen-over-hazara-case-20130320-2gg23.html#ixzz2O59pYsHS

With the current race to the bottom by the major parties on asylum seeker policy, it is always good to see evidence of the Rule of Law being alive and well in this country. This makes the fact that we have dumb and dumber as the two options for PM in September a little less troubling.

If you don't like this country Luke - FO

Your Greens party have destroyed Australia and you are pontificating about 100 illegals?

The Greens are a parasyte on Australia

They lack any real policies

They are at best a lobby party

After the 2010 - Australia have learnt never to put itself in this position again with the Greens thinking it runs the country

I dislike Labor

I like Greens even less

Haven't got a problem with their ideals other than the idiots that implement it and those who support these idiots

Preference the Devil, the Sex Party r whatever party but never the Greens

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

If you don't like this country Luke - FO Your Greens party have destroyed Australia and you are pontificating about 100 illegals? The Greens are a parasyte on Australia They lack any real policies They are at best a lobby party After the 2010 - Australia have learnt never to put itself in this position again with the Greens thinking it runs the country I dislike Labor I like Greens even less Haven't got a problem with their ideals other than the idiots that implement it and those who support these idiots Preference the Devil, the Sex Party r whatever party but never the Greens

dummy, if the 100 are illegals how are they not allowed to be deported? derrr dummy is such a dummy.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 11:54pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:40pm: If you don't like this country Luke - FO Your Greens party have destroyed Australia and you are pontificating about 100 illegals? The Greens are a parasyte on Australia They lack any real policies They are at best a lobby party After the 2010 - Australia have learnt never to put itself in this position again with the Greens thinking it runs the country I dislike Labor I like Greens even less Haven't got a problem with their ideals other than the idiots that implement it and those who support these idiots Preference the Devil, the Sex Party r whatever party but never the Greens dummy, if the 100 are illegals how are they not allowed to be deported? derrr dummy is such a dummy.

Because they tie up the courts with one appeal after the other...

Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 10:34pm:

More than 100 Afghan asylum seekers could have their failed refugee assessments reviewed after a court ruled that former immigration minister Chris Bowen had illegally ordered one man's removal to Afghanistan. The Federal Court on Wednesday spared the man's removal to Afghanistan after he had spent about two years in detention. All five judges on the bench described former immigration minister Chris Bowen's handling of the case of a Hazara, detained for more than two years, as ''disturbing''. They declared Mr Bowen's decision invalid and restrained Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor from removing the man ''until the claims for protection … have been assessed according to law''. The court also declared that his previous refugee assessment had not been carried out lawfully. The decision is a setback for the government's hopes of using the involuntary return of ''failed'' asylum seekers to deter more arrivals. The Hazara man, 34, arrived in 2010, claiming that the Taliban would kill him if he returned. He was scheduled to be flown to Afghanistan last September, having failed his refugee assessments. Mr Bowen then had personal legal powers to grant him a visa if it was in the public interest. But on the same day that he was asked to decide whether to use these powers, he said he would not consider it, even if he was wrong and even if the assessments of the man were factually or legally wrong. The minister's lawyers later argued that offshore entry persons did not have a right to compel him to use his powers, which were discretionary and not subject to judicial or parliamentary review. The court held exercising those powers would ''[require] a decision-maker to hear and genuinely take into account what he has been told'', for procedural fairness. ''An opportunity to speak to a decision-maker who does not listen is no opportunity at all.'' Victor Harcourt, principal of public law at Russell Kennedy, which represented the man, said: ''This decision will have an immediate and significant impact on 100 or more other Afghan asylum seekers that we know to be in a similar position to our client.'' The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre's spokeswoman, Pamela Curr, said the decision showed ''toxic politics does not reign supreme and the rule of law and justice still have a chance''. Afghans comprise the second-biggest ethnic group with 2286 arrivals this year, including more than 200 who arrived on three boats this week. A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Brendan O'Connor said the federal government's lawyers were reviewing the judgment. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/court-scolds-bowen-over-hazara-case-20130320-2gg23.html#ixzz2O59pYsHS With the current race to the bottom by the major parties on asylum seeker policy, it is always good to see evidence of the Rule of Law being alive and well in this country. This makes the fact that we have dumb and dumber as the two options for PM in September a little less troubling.

given that your position is 'let everyone who wants to come, come' then there is a thrid position that is stupider than any other - yours.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:14am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:54pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:40pm: If you don't like this country Luke - FO Your Greens party have destroyed Australia and you are pontificating about 100 illegals? The Greens are a parasyte on Australia They lack any real policies They are at best a lobby party After the 2010 - Australia have learnt never to put itself in this position again with the Greens thinking it runs the country I dislike Labor I like Greens even less Haven't got a problem with their ideals other than the idiots that implement it and those who support these idiots Preference the Devil, the Sex Party r whatever party but never the Greens dummy, if the 100 are illegals how are they not allowed to be deported? derrr dummy is such a dummy. Because they tie up the courts with one appeal after the other...

So then they aren't illegal.  Thanks for prOving the point holy dumbness.

If they are not illegal then why are they detained?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

If you don't like this country Luke - FO Your Greens party have destroyed Australia and you are pontificating about 100 illegals? The Greens are a parasyte on Australia They lack any real policies They are at best a lobby party After the 2010 - Australia have learnt never to put itself in this position again with the Greens thinking it runs the country I dislike Labor I like Greens even less Haven't got a problem with their ideals other than the idiots that implement it and those who support these idiots Preference the Devil, the Sex Party r whatever party but never the Greens

I was actually saying the the country is great because of the fact that, no matter what idiot gets in power, the Rule of Law is generally there to protect us from any excesses or diminution of procedural and/or substantive fairness. A strong judiciary is the reason a democracy thrives.

I do travel quite a bit and have lived in quite a few amazing cities but I like it here in Melbourne a lot. It is a vibrant, multicultural city with some really great artistic, cultural and sporting events ... and nothing beats a pint of beer and a good book at my favorite pub by the Yarra River on a hot sunny day.

So, I am probably not going to take you up on your offer to "FO".  I am quite happy spending the majority of my time in this lovely city.

Also, I am pretty sure our Judiciary was around before The formation of The Greens.

I do find it quite amusing that you seem to suggest that anyone that does not like this country should "FO" and then go on to lament how the country is "destroyed". If you feel that is the case, you might want to heed your own advice.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 9:32am:

If they are not illegal then why are they detained?

Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa.

Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 9:47am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy.

can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:55am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal.

Yep I can. Refugee Convention explains it. So does the migration Act.

But we all know for someone to be deemed to have performed an illegal act they must either admit to it or have the courts determine it.  Here the courts don't seem to have determined it. ;D  How is it that the High Court hsa deemed asylum seekers cannot be deported because they have a right to have their protection application be heard and determined, and yet unlawful immigrants can be deported? You nuffs are the WORST legal interpreters in the world. You simply don't get it.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:59am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Yep I can. Refugee Convention explains it. So does the migration Act. But we all know for someone to be deemed to have performed an illegal act they must either admit to it or have the courts determine it.  Here the courts don't seem to have determined it. ;D  How is it that the High Court hsa deemed asylum seekers cannot be deported because they have a right to have their protection application be heard and determined, and yet unlawful immigrants can be deported? You nuffs are the WORST legal interpreters in the world. You simply don't get it.

So in the Baden Clay situation - the courts have not determined that and he's been in locked down for awhile now

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:02am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:59am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Yep I can. Refugee Convention explains it. So does the migration Act. But we all know for someone to be deemed to have performed an illegal act they must either admit to it or have the courts determine it.  Here the courts don't seem to have determined it. ;D  How is it that the High Court hsa deemed asylum seekers cannot be deported because they have a right to have their protection application be heard and determined, and yet unlawful immigrants can be deported? You nuffs are the WORST legal interpreters in the world. You simply don't get it. So in the Baden Clay situation - the courts have not determined that and he's been in locked down for awhile now

Exactly right dummy.  He is on trial. Well done :) I'm glad you now understand.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 9:47am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy.

so ANYONE and EVERYONE who applies for a protection VISA is locked up??

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:02am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:59am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Yep I can. Refugee Convention explains it. So does the migration Act. But we all know for someone to be deemed to have performed an illegal act they must either admit to it or have the courts determine it.  Here the courts don't seem to have determined it. ;D  How is it that the High Court hsa deemed asylum seekers cannot be deported because they have a right to have their protection application be heard and determined, and yet unlawful immigrants can be deported? You nuffs are the WORST legal interpreters in the world. You simply don't get it. So in the Baden Clay situation - the courts have not determined that and he's been in locked down for awhile now Exactly right dummy.  He is on trial. Well done :) I'm glad you now understand.

MORON

Where was he before the trial started?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:08am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:02am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:59am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Yep I can. Refugee Convention explains it. So does the migration Act. But we all know for someone to be deemed to have performed an illegal act they must either admit to it or have the courts determine it.  Here the courts don't seem to have determined it. ;D  How is it that the High Court hsa deemed asylum seekers cannot be deported because they have a right to have their protection application be heard and determined, and yet unlawful immigrants can be deported? You nuffs are the WORST legal interpreters in the world. You simply don't get it. So in the Baden Clay situation - the courts have not determined that and he's been in locked down for awhile now Exactly right dummy.  He is on trial. Well done :) I'm glad you now understand. MORON Where was he before the trial started?

In holding cells, dummy.  He is allowed to be detained while his case is heard, but as usual it's "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal cases and as a result as it stands he is still innocent. 

Again, dummy, I beg you to please stop playing lawyer becuase you are simply TOO DUMB. ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:09am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:08am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:02am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:59am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Yep I can. Refugee Convention explains it. So does the migration Act. But we all know for someone to be deemed to have performed an illegal act they must either admit to it or have the courts determine it.  Here the courts don't seem to have determined it. ;D  How is it that the High Court hsa deemed asylum seekers cannot be deported because they have a right to have their protection application be heard and determined, and yet unlawful immigrants can be deported? You nuffs are the WORST legal interpreters in the world. You simply don't get it. So in the Baden Clay situation - the courts have not determined that and he's been in locked down for awhile now Exactly right dummy.  He is on trial. Well done :) I'm glad you now understand. MORON Where was he before the trial started? In holding cells, dummy.  He is allowed to be detained while his case is heard, but as usual it's "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal cases and as a result as it stands he is still innocent.  Again, dummy, I beg you to please stop playing lawyer becuase you are simply TOO DUMB. ;D

we are talking about being detained

he's been deemed as having done something illegal therefore detained

the same goes for those who came to Aust without a VISA - they are deemed to have done something illegal and detained

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:07am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. so ANYONE and EVERYONE who applies for a protection VISA is locked up??

bump

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:15am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. so ANYONE and EVERYONE who applies for a protection VISA is locked up?? bump

For protection visa as per refugee convention. Not sure how much more of this I can take. ;D  Seriously, dummy is just becoming so dumb. You shouldn't bumped that, it was embarrassing on your part! ;D

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:14am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:09am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:08am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:02am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:59am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Yep I can. Refugee Convention explains it. So does the migration Act. But we all know for someone to be deemed to have performed an illegal act they must either admit to it or have the courts determine it.  Here the courts don't seem to have determined it. ;D  How is it that the High Court hsa deemed asylum seekers cannot be deported because they have a right to have their protection application be heard and determined, and yet unlawful immigrants can be deported? You nuffs are the WORST legal interpreters in the world. You simply don't get it. So in the Baden Clay situation - the courts have not determined that and he's been in locked down for awhile now Exactly right dummy.  He is on trial. Well done :) I'm glad you now understand. MORON Where was he before the trial started? In holding cells, dummy.  He is allowed to be detained while his case is heard, but as usual it's "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal cases and as a result as it stands he is still innocent.  Again, dummy, I beg you to please stop playing lawyer becuase you are simply TOO DUMB. ;D we are talking about being detained he's been deemed as having done something illegal therefore detained the same goes for those who came to Aust without a VISA - they are deemed to have done something illegal and detained

dummy, deemed or not deemed is your opinnion.  Being deemed doesn't confirm illegality. ;D 

And Asylum seekers are detained as per the refugee convention.  Not because they have deemed to have done something illegal. ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:19am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:15am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. so ANYONE and EVERYONE who applies for a protection VISA is locked up?? bump For protection visa as per refugee convention. Not sure how much more of this I can take. ;D  Seriously, dummy is just becoming so dumb. You shouldn't bumped that, it was embarrassing on your part! ;D

What page is this "protection VISA" mentioned in the Refugee Convention

and where does it say they have to be locked in in the Refugee Convention

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:59am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Yep I can. Refugee Convention explains it. So does the migration Act. But we all know for someone to be deemed to have performed an illegal act they must either admit to it or have the courts determine it.  Here the courts don't seem to have determined it. ;D  How is it that the High Court hsa deemed asylum seekers cannot be deported because they have a right to have their protection application be heard and determined, and yet unlawful immigrants can be deported? You nuffs are the WORST legal interpreters in the world. You simply don't get it.

'unlawful immigrants' dont claim asylum and so are deported. 'asylum seekers' aer deported if their claims are not granted because what they did originally WAS ILLEGAL.

your understanding of the law and logic are nonexistent.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:09am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:08am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:02am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:59am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Yep I can. Refugee Convention explains it. So does the migration Act. But we all know for someone to be deemed to have performed an illegal act they must either admit to it or have the courts determine it.  Here the courts don't seem to have determined it. ;D  How is it that the High Court hsa deemed asylum seekers cannot be deported because they have a right to have their protection application be heard and determined, and yet unlawful immigrants can be deported? You nuffs are the WORST legal interpreters in the world. You simply don't get it. So in the Baden Clay situation - the courts have not determined that and he's been in locked down for awhile now Exactly right dummy.  He is on trial. Well done :) I'm glad you now understand. MORON Where was he before the trial started? In holding cells, dummy.  He is allowed to be detained while his case is heard, but as usual it's "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal cases and as a result as it stands he is still innocent.  Again, dummy, I beg you to please stop playing lawyer becuase you are simply TOO DUMB. ;D

why are people held in jail while awaiting trial? they are still considered innocent under the law.

your own argument sinks you.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:30am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:59am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Yep I can. Refugee Convention explains it. So does the migration Act. But we all know for someone to be deemed to have performed an illegal act they must either admit to it or have the courts determine it.  Here the courts don't seem to have determined it. ;D  How is it that the High Court hsa deemed asylum seekers cannot be deported because they have a right to have their protection application be heard and determined, and yet unlawful immigrants can be deported? You nuffs are the WORST legal interpreters in the world. You simply don't get it. 'unlawful immigrants' dont claim asylum and so are deported. 'asylum seekers' aer deported if their claims are not granted because what they did originally WAS ILLEGAL. your understanding of the law and logic are nonexistent.

Asylum Seekers are deported if their claims are not granted because they cease to be asylum seekers at that point and then they become unlawful. Noone denies that. But the point being made is that ASYLUM SEEKERS are not in anyway illegal, as has been once again shown by the high court.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:32am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:09am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:08am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:02am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:59am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Yep I can. Refugee Convention explains it. So does the migration Act. But we all know for someone to be deemed to have performed an illegal act they must either admit to it or have the courts determine it.  Here the courts don't seem to have determined it. ;D  How is it that the High Court hsa deemed asylum seekers cannot be deported because they have a right to have their protection application be heard and determined, and yet unlawful immigrants can be deported? You nuffs are the WORST legal interpreters in the world. You simply don't get it. So in the Baden Clay situation - the courts have not determined that and he's been in locked down for awhile now Exactly right dummy.  He is on trial. Well done :) I'm glad you now understand. MORON Where was he before the trial started? In holding cells, dummy.  He is allowed to be detained while his case is heard, but as usual it's "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal cases and as a result as it stands he is still innocent.  Again, dummy, I beg you to please stop playing lawyer becuase you are simply TOO DUMB. ;D why are people held in jail while awaiting trial? they are still considered innocent under the law. your own argument sinks you.

;D So you're saying people held in jail awaiting trial are there because they are illegal?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:28am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:19am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:15am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. so ANYONE and EVERYONE who applies for a protection VISA is locked up?? bump For protection visa as per refugee convention. Not sure how much more of this I can take. ;D  Seriously, dummy is just becoming so dumb. You shouldn't bumped that, it was embarrassing on your part! ;D What page is this "protection VISA" mentioned in the Refugee Convention and where does it say they have to be locked in in the Refugee Convention

Protection visa is in the migration act which specifieis the protection visa is specifically created to adhere to the refugee convention.

As for "where does it say.." I thought you read the refugee convention? :D Maybe that's why you're so dumb. You spent the whole time not reading but looking for words. And as a result you failed to understand the context under which those words mean, or WHAT the actual refugee convention allows and doesn't allow. ;D  Purely dumb.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:43am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:28am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:19am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:15am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. so ANYONE and EVERYONE who applies for a protection VISA is locked up?? bump For protection visa as per refugee convention. Not sure how much more of this I can take. ;D  Seriously, dummy is just becoming so dumb. You shouldn't bumped that, it was embarrassing on your part! ;D What page is this "protection VISA" mentioned in the Refugee Convention and where does it say they have to be locked in in the Refugee Convention Protection visa is in the migration act which specifieis the protection visa is specifically created to adhere to the refugee convention. As for "where does it say.." I thought you read the refugee convention? :D Maybe that's why you're so dumb. You spent the whole time not reading but looking for words. And as a result you failed to understand the context under which those words mean, or WHAT the actual refugee convention allows and doesn't allow. ;D  Purely dumb.

You can see that you said "as per Refugee Convention" - so the moron is you

So where does it say that those applying for protection VISA must be locked up?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:43am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:28am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:19am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:15am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. so ANYONE and EVERYONE who applies for a protection VISA is locked up?? bump For protection visa as per refugee convention. Not sure how much more of this I can take. ;D  Seriously, dummy is just becoming so dumb. You shouldn't bumped that, it was embarrassing on your part! ;D What page is this "protection VISA" mentioned in the Refugee Convention and where does it say they have to be locked in in the Refugee Convention U Protection visa is in the migration act which specifieis the protection visa is specifically created to adhere to the refugee convention. As for "where does it say.." I thought you read the refugee convention? :D Maybe that's why you're so dumb. You spent the whole time not reading but looking for words. And as a result you failed to understand the context under which those words mean, or WHAT the actual refugee convention allows and doesn't allow. ;D  Purely dumb. You can see that you said "as per Refugee Convention" - so the moron is you So where does it say that those applying for protection VISA must be locked up?

:D  ;D. Haven't you read the migration act and refugee convention?  Dummy.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 10:55am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal.

Remand

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:52am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:43am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:28am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:19am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:15am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. so ANYONE and EVERYONE who applies for a protection VISA is locked up?? bump For protection visa as per refugee convention. Not sure how much more of this I can take. ;D  Seriously, dummy is just becoming so dumb. You shouldn't bumped that, it was embarrassing on your part! ;D What page is this "protection VISA" mentioned in the Refugee Convention and where does it say they have to be locked in in the Refugee Convention U Protection visa is in the migration act which specifieis the protection visa is specifically created to adhere to the refugee convention. As for "where does it say.." I thought you read the refugee convention? :D Maybe that's why you're so dumb. You spent the whole time not reading but looking for words. And as a result you failed to understand the context under which those words mean, or WHAT the actual refugee convention allows and doesn't allow. ;D  Purely dumb. You can see that you said "as per Refugee Convention" - so the moron is you So where does it say that those applying for protection VISA must be locked up? :D  ;D. Haven't you read the migration act and refugee convention?  Dummy.

so you have said "Protection VISA as per Refugee Convention" but cannot give us one reference to where in the Refugee Convention

SLAP SLAP SLAP

U
Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:56am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:52am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:43am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:28am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:19am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:15am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. so ANYONE and EVERYONE who applies for a protection VISA is locked up?? bump For protection visa as per refugee convention. Not sure how much more of this I can take. ;D  Seriously, dummy is just becoming so dumb. You shouldn't bumped that, it was embarrassing on your part! ;D What page is this "protection VISA" mentioned in the Refugee Convention and where does it say they have to be locked in in the Refugee Convention U Protection visa is in the migration act which specifieis the protection visa is specifically created to adhere to the refugee convention. As for "where does it say.." I thought you read the refugee convention? :D Maybe that's why you're so dumb. You spent the whole time not reading but looking for words. And as a result you failed to understand the context under which those words mean, or WHAT the actual refugee convention allows and doesn't allow. ;D  Purely dumb. You can see that you said "as per Refugee Convention" - so the moron is you So where does it say that those applying for protection VISA must be locked up? :D  ;D. Haven't you read the migration act and refugee convention?  Dummy. so you have said "Protection VISA as per Refugee Convention" but cannot give us one reference to where in the Refugee Convention SLAP SLAP SLAP

If dummy had read dummy wouldn't have needed to ask. All this time dummy has been lying.  For shame.

Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Remand

remand based on those who are lawful in Australia

unlawful non-citizen are detained for deportation

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:57am:

U Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:56am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:52am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:43am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:28am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:19am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:15am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. so ANYONE and EVERYONE who applies for a protection VISA is locked up?? bump For protection visa as per refugee convention. Not sure how much more of this I can take. ;D  Seriously, dummy is just becoming so dumb. You shouldn't bumped that, it was embarrassing on your part! ;D What page is this "protection VISA" mentioned in the Refugee Convention and where does it say they have to be locked in in the Refugee Convention U Protection visa is in the migration act which specifieis the protection visa is specifically created to adhere to the refugee convention. As for "where does it say.." I thought you read the refugee convention? :D Maybe that's why you're so dumb. You spent the whole time not reading but looking for words. And as a result you failed to understand the context under which those words mean, or WHAT the actual refugee convention allows and doesn't allow. ;D  Purely dumb. You can see that you said "as per Refugee Convention" - so the moron is you So where does it say that those applying for protection VISA must be locked up? :D  ;D. Haven't you read the migration act and refugee convention?  Dummy. so you have said "Protection VISA as per Refugee Convention" but cannot give us one reference to where in the Refugee Convention SLAP SLAP SLAP If dummy had read dummy wouldn't have needed to ask. All this time dummy has been lying.  For shame.

SLAP SLAP SLAP

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 12:00pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:55am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Remand remand based on those who are lawful in Australia unlawful non-citizen are detained for deportation

Hahaha but not allowed to be deported by the high court. Make sense dummy.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 12:00pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:57am: U Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:56am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:52am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:43am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:28am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:19am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:15am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. so ANYONE and EVERYONE who applies for a protection VISA is locked up?? bump For protection visa as per refugee convention. Not sure how much more of this I can take. ;D  Seriously, dummy is just becoming so dumb. You shouldn't bumped that, it was embarrassing on your part! ;D What page is this "protection VISA" mentioned in the Refugee Convention and where does it say they have to be locked in in the Refugee Convention U Protection visa is in the migration act which specifieis the protection visa is specifically created to adhere to the refugee convention. As for "where does it say.." I thought you read the refugee convention? :D Maybe that's why you're so dumb. You spent the whole time not reading but looking for words. And as a result you failed to understand the context under which those words mean, or WHAT the actual refugee convention allows and doesn't allow. ;D  Purely dumb. You can see that you said "as per Refugee Convention" - so the moron is you So where does it say that those applying for protection VISA must be locked up? :D  ;D. Haven't you read the migration act and refugee convention?  Dummy. so you have said "Protection VISA as per Refugee Convention" but cannot give us one reference to where in the Refugee Convention SLAP SLAP SLAP If dummy had read dummy wouldn't have needed to ask. All this time dummy has been lying.  For shame. SLAP SLAP SLAP

It's okay dummy, I don't expect you to admit you were wrong .  That would show you had some smarts.

Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 11:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Remand

for an alleged criminal act. kinda the point I was making.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 2:16pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:55am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Remand for an alleged criminal act. kinda the point I was making.

and it would still be an incorrect assumption.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html  Correct assumption.  Article 26 and 31.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 2:16pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 11:55am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 10:55am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 21st, 2013 at 9:32am: If they are not illegal then why are they detained? Because it's part of the process when applying for a protection visa. Why aren't they allowed to be deported if they are illegal? ;D  Dummy. can you find an example of a process where someone is detained against their will yet are not illegal (other than mental health detentions). none exist. the act of arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL and is why they are detained. the post facto application for asylum allows them to stay. it does not render the original illegal act, legal. Remand for an alleged criminal act. kinda the point I was making.

Do you understand what the presumption of innocence is?