BABIES born in detention will be classed as illegal boat arrivals and subject to the same ­offshore processing as their parents, under new laws ­designed to prevent them ­obtaining automatic Australian citizenship. 
 
The move would stop the practice of “anchor babies”, the term used for illegal refugees who come to Australia to have a child in detention.

Illegal arrivals in the past have used childbirth to milk taxpayer-funded welfare and improve chances of residency.

Under the new laws, which will be debated in parliament this week, a baby born in detention would have the same classification as its parents.

The tough laws, which were introduced by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison as part of a bill to reintroduce Temporary Protection Visas, is another measure to reduce the appeal of illegally coming to Australia.

Mr Morrison said the ­government would extend the definition of ­Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals to include children of Illegal Maritime Arrivals.

“This will ensure that, consistent with their parents, these children are subject to offshore processing and are unable to apply for a visa while they remain in Australia, unless I have ­personally intervened to allow a visa ­application,’’ he said.

“This amendment supports the government’s intention that IMA families in regional processing countries should be treated consistently and that children born to an IMA ought not be treated separately from their family in the protection ­assessment process.”

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/tough-laws-on-boat-arrivals-sink-anchor-babies-ruse/story-fni0cx12-1227075792609

Good job, Mr Morrison! Thousands of genuine refugees who did the right thing and have been able to come here are grateful for you saving their place instead of giving it to the queue-jumpers Labor and the Greens have so loved in years past.

Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 6:33am:

Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat.

There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose.

Shame Abbott Shame

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 6:36am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am: Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat. There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose.

Aussie immigration: Sigh the papers, baby. Sign the papers and you can go home.
Baby: bboobah gggls
Aussie immigration: [Turning to colleague] I'm sure that was Arabic for OK, bro, wasn't it. We'll have him shipped out in no time.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 6:36am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am: Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat. There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose.

home where? they were born here?

John Smith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 7:51am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:36am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am: Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat. There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose. home where? they were born here?

For that matter, "choose" is probably a bit too much of a tall order as well.

Title should be prison camp babies threaten terrorism if wishes not granted. Shame LNP shame.

John Smith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 7:51am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:36am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am: Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat. There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose. home where? they were born here?

No. Home is the nationality of the parents. The child has dual nationality, not just Australian.

Having a child here, has f-ck all effect on your chances of being granted asylum.

It's a stupid article that's seized upon the yank term "anchor babies". It'll probably also enter common usage here amongst the brain dead.

Australia's treatment of asylum seekers is appalling and is a very low point in Australian history.....Treating innocent people like criminals goes against every democratic principle known to man.....Australia should be ashamed of its actions and the political leaders who allow this abuse to happen in our name.....What goes around comes around and Australia will regret this disgusting part of our history when bigotry ruled over decency and the rule of law has been manipulated for political expediency!!!

>:( >:( >:(

If Armpit could think he might wonder why so few choose to be returned to their home country.

There was also the man executed in Afghanistan when returning there to visit family—a lot of those who return home face imprisonment and worse.

What a mean spirited nasty bitchy government this crop of LNP are, shame.

How many actual anchor babies has there been in Australias history.

Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 8:06am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 7:51am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:36am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am: Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat. There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose. home where? they were born here? No. Home is the nationality of the parents. The child has dual nationality, not just Australian. Having a child here, has f-ck all effect on your chances of being granted asylum. It's a stupid article that's seized upon the yank term "anchor babies". It'll probably also enter common usage here amongst the brain dead.

you have a baby overseas and see if the Aussie govt. will automatically accept it as a citizen ... not saying they won't but you can't just have a baby and then turn up at the airport expecting them to let him in

there are loops to be jumped and someone in detention is not in much of a position to jump them

John Smith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 7:51am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:36am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am: Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat. There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose. home where? they were born here?

The Kiwi racing driver Scott Dixon was born in Brisbane yet he says he is from New Zealand which is where his parents are from.

Mr Dixon denies being Aussie despite being born here.

It appears there are many that deny being Aussie despite being born here.

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 11:00am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 7:51am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:36am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am: Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat. There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose. home where? they were born here? The Kiwi racing driver Scott Dixon was born in Brisbane yet he says he is from New Zealand which is where his parents are from. Mr Dixon denies being Aussie despite being born here. It appears there are many that deny being Aussie despite being born here.

and? as an adult that is his choice to make ...... it's a very different proposition from 'who' a country may recognise as its citizen.  Say, for example, the family come from Syria. ... what if the Syrian govt. refuses to accept the baby as a citizen? then what do we do? leave him in detention forever?

a baby has no choice and has no emotional attachment to any place other than its mums breasts

John Smith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 11:05am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 11:00am: John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 7:51am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:36am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am: Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat. There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose. home where? they were born here? The Kiwi racing driver Scott Dixon was born in Brisbane yet he says he is from New Zealand which is where his parents are from. Mr Dixon denies being Aussie despite being born here. It appears there are many that deny being Aussie despite being born here. and? as an adult that is his choice to make ...... it's a very different proposition from 'who' a country may recognise as its citizen.  Say, for example, the family come from Syria. ... what if the Syrian govt. refuses to accept the baby as a citizen? then what do we do? leave him in detention forever? a baby has no choice and has no emotional attachment to any place other than its mums breasts

Scott Dixon claims he was born here while his parents were visiting Australia, he says he is 100% Kiwi.

Which government in Syria are you talking about- Assad or the Islamic state?

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 11:16am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 11:05am: Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 11:00am: John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 7:51am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:36am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am: Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat. There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose. home where? they were born here? The Kiwi racing driver Scott Dixon was born in Brisbane yet he says he is from New Zealand which is where his parents are from. Mr Dixon denies being Aussie despite being born here. It appears there are many that deny being Aussie despite being born here. and? as an adult that is his choice to make ...... it's a very different proposition from 'who' a country may recognise as its citizen.  Say, for example, the family come from Syria. ... what if the Syrian govt. refuses to accept the baby as a citizen? then what do we do? leave him in detention forever? a baby has no choice and has no emotional attachment to any place other than its mums breasts Scott Dixon claims he was born here while his parents were visiting Australia, he says he is 100% Kiwi. Which government in Syria are you talking about- Assad or the Islamic state?

you're not listening .... it doesn't matter what Mr Dixon says, its what the govt, says ... any govt.

clearly daniel meers is an idiot. How can a refugee be illegal???? ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:15am:

clearly daniel meers is an idiot. How can a refugee be illegal???? ;D

easily.  break the law.

it is actually that simple.  and being a refugee does not imply right of access. it only implies right to be considered a refugee.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 8:34am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:15am: clearly daniel meers is an idiot. How can a refugee be illegal???? ;D easily.  break the law. it is actually that simple.  and being a refugee does not imply right of access. it only implies right to be considered a refugee.

Fck me you've become an absolute idiot. Please stop trying to pretend that you understand the migration act and the refugee convention because you CLEARLY don't.  By definition they are people who have been granted asylum, hence NEVER anything illegal under our domestic laws and international laws we have agreed to.
And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal.

Fck, it's like a competition to who can have less brains between you and armpit.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 8:47am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:34am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:15am: clearly daniel meers is an idiot. How can a refugee be illegal???? ;D easily.  break the law. it is actually that simple.  and being a refugee does not imply right of access. it only implies right to be considered a refugee. Fck me you've become an absolute idiot. Please stop trying to pretend that you understand the migration act and the refugee convention because you CLEARLY don't.  By definition they are people who have been granted asylum, hence NEVER anything illegal under our domestic laws and international laws we have agreed to. And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal. Fck, it's like a competition to who can have less brains between you and armpit.

some interesting statements there and a few absolute whoppers.

Arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL.  no doubt about it.  Claiming asylum is a right but that does not change the fact of the illegal entry

But I want to retain my mirth for this one... 
Quote:

And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal.

In the words of Pauling Hanson... 'please explain'

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 11:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:34am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:15am: clearly daniel meers is an idiot. How can a refugee be illegal???? ;D easily.  break the law. it is actually that simple.  and being a refugee does not imply right of access. it only implies right to be considered a refugee. Fck me you've become an absolute idiot. Please stop trying to pretend that you understand the migration act and the refugee convention because you CLEARLY don't.  By definition they are people who have been granted asylum, hence NEVER anything illegal under our domestic laws and international laws we have agreed to. And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal. Fck, it's like a competition to who can have less brains between you and armpit. some interesting statements there and a few absolute whoppers. Arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL.  no doubt about it.  Claiming asylum is a right but that does not change the fact of the illegal entry But I want to retain my mirth for this one...  Quote: And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal. In the words of Pauling Hanson... 'please explain'

you are breaking the law if you smash a shop window , however if you do it because the building is on fire, you are doing nothing illegal

simple enough for you longie?

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 11:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:34am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:15am: clearly daniel meers is an idiot. How can a refugee be illegal???? ;D easily.  break the law. it is actually that simple.  and being a refugee does not imply right of access. it only implies right to be considered a refugee. Fck me you've become an absolute idiot. Please stop trying to pretend that you understand the migration act and the refugee convention because you CLEARLY don't.  By definition they are people who have been granted asylum, hence NEVER anything illegal under our domestic laws and international laws we have agreed to. And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal. Fck, it's like a competition to who can have less brains between you and armpit. some interesting statements there and a few absolute whoppers. Arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL.  no doubt about it.  Claiming asylum is a right but that does not change the fact of the illegal entry But I want to retain my mirth for this one...  Quote: And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal. In the words of Pauling Hanson... 'please explain'

You continue to show your outright stupidity.
1. Arriving here without permissions is NOT illegal.  That has NO DOUBT about it.   ;D
2. Even if it were illegal, it doesn't make a refugee an ILLEGAL refugee. Idiot.

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:34am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:15am: clearly daniel meers is an idiot. How can a refugee be illegal???? ;D easily.  break the law. it is actually that simple.  and being a refugee does not imply right of access. it only implies right to be considered a refugee. Fck me you've become an absolute idiot. Please stop trying to pretend that you understand the migration act and the refugee convention because you CLEARLY don't.  By definition they are people who have been granted asylum, hence NEVER anything illegal under our domestic laws and international laws we have agreed to. And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal. Fck, it's like a competition to who can have less brains between you and armpit. some interesting statements there and a few absolute whoppers. Arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL.  no doubt about it.  Claiming asylum is a right but that does not change the fact of the illegal entry But I want to retain my mirth for this one...  Quote: And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal. In the words of Pauling Hanson... 'please explain' you are breaking the law if you smash a shop window , however if you do it because the building is on fire, you are doing nothing illegal simple enough for you longie?

actually, legally you ARE still doing something illegal.  What changes is that you have a valid DEFENCE against the act.  It might seem technical to you but it is a real distinction and is very apt here.  Seeking asylum after arriving illegally is fine but you are still committing an illegal act that has a DEFENCE of seeking and being granted asylum.  IF you are not granted asylum you have no defence.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:34am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:15am: clearly daniel meers is an idiot. How can a refugee be illegal???? ;D easily.  break the law. it is actually that simple.  and being a refugee does not imply right of access. it only implies right to be considered a refugee. Fck me you've become an absolute idiot. Please stop trying to pretend that you understand the migration act and the refugee convention because you CLEARLY don't.  By definition they are people who have been granted asylum, hence NEVER anything illegal under our domestic laws and international laws we have agreed to. And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal. Fck, it's like a competition to who can have less brains between you and armpit. some interesting statements there and a few absolute whoppers. Arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL.  no doubt about it.  Claiming asylum is a right but that does not change the fact of the illegal entry But I want to retain my mirth for this one...  Quote: And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal. In the words of Pauling Hanson... 'please explain' You continue to show your outright stupidity. 1. Arriving here without permissions is NOT illegal.  That has NO DOUBT about it.   ;D 2. Even if it were illegal, it doesn't make a refugee an ILLEGAL refugee. Idiot.

you've been listening toe SHY and peccahead and other drongos.  it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission.  Or why do you think we even have a passport and visa system?  if you come here without permission it is clearly ILLEGAL.  now if you were peccahead you would say it is UNLAWFUL instead and pretend like there is a difference.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:41pm:

actually, legally you ARE still doing something illegal.  What changes is that you have a valid DEFENCE against the act.  It might seem technical to you but it is a real distinction and is very apt here.  Seeking asylum after arriving illegally is fine but you are still committing an illegal act that has a DEFENCE of seeking and being granted asylum.  IF you are not granted asylum you have no defence.

it is not a defence ... whats to defend? you've done nothing illegal and will never be charged ... no defence necessary

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:43pm:

it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission

but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:38pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 11:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:47am: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:34am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:15am: clearly daniel meers is an idiot. How can a refugee be illegal???? ;D easily.  break the law. it is actually that simple.  and being a refugee does not imply right of access. it only implies right to be considered a refugee. Fck me you've become an absolute idiot. Please stop trying to pretend that you understand the migration act and the refugee convention because you CLEARLY don't.  By definition they are people who have been granted asylum, hence NEVER anything illegal under our domestic laws and international laws we have agreed to. And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal. Fck, it's like a competition to who can have less brains between you and armpit. some interesting statements there and a few absolute whoppers. Arriving here without permission is ILLEGAL.  no doubt about it.  Claiming asylum is a right but that does not change the fact of the illegal entry But I want to retain my mirth for this one...  Quote: And breaking the law doesn't necessarily mean you've done something illegal. In the words of Pauling Hanson... 'please explain' You continue to show your outright stupidity. 1. Arriving here without permissions is NOT illegal.  That has NO DOUBT about it.   ;D 2. Even if it were illegal, it doesn't make a refugee an ILLEGAL refugee. Idiot. you've been listening toe SHY and peccahead and other drongos.  it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission.  Or why do you think we even have a passport and visa system?  if you come here without permission it is clearly ILLEGAL.  now if you were peccahead you would say it is UNLAWFUL instead and pretend like there is a difference.

Idiot, read our migration act. Then come back and see if you still want to argue that. Seriously, talk about stupid, to be told over and over and to still continue with the same nonsense.

And even if we allow for bogans such as yourself to interchange meanings of words, it STILL doesn't make a REFUGEE ILLEGAL. bugger me.  Talk about dumb.

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come

Don't bother with him. He's become dumber than Maqqa used to be. 

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come

And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either.

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either.

well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:55pm:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:51pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either. well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do.

The refugee convention is designed for actual refugees and not plumbers from Pakistan who are chasing the money.

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either.

if they're asylum seekers, we are .... the fact that the libs pick and choose which agreements they'll honour or break is irrelevant ...

of course you could always petition the libs to withdraw from the UN treaty if you like?

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:57pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:55pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:51pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either. well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do. The refugee convention is designed for actual refugees and not plumbers from Pakistan who are chasing the money.

over 90% of applicants were found to be genuine ... leave your fantasy for someone who'll believe it

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:01pm:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:55pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:51pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either. well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do. The refugee convention is designed for actual refugees and not plumbers from Pakistan who are chasing the money. over 90% of applicants were found to be genuine ... leave your fantasy for someone who'll believe it

By whom? Certainly not our current government. Just because some do-gooder says so doesn't make it fact.

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:01pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:55pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:51pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either. well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do. The refugee convention is designed for actual refugees and not plumbers from Pakistan who are chasing the money. over 90% of applicants were found to be genuine ... leave your fantasy for someone who'll believe it By whom? Certainly not our current government. Just because some do-gooder says so doesn't make it fact.

By the govt. of Australia

its not the politicians who determine their status, its the public servants working for the dept. of immigration ... are you trying to claim they are all incompetant?

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:57pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:55pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:51pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either. well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do. The refugee convention is designed for actual refugees and not plumbers from Pakistan who are chasing the money.

and the plumbers from Pakistan won't be assessed as refugees unless they were plumbers from Pakistan fleeing persecution for political reasons, or perhaps for plumbing reasons.   

So I ask...what is your point? ;D

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:01pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:55pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:51pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either. well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do. The refugee convention is designed for actual refugees and not plumbers from Pakistan who are chasing the money. over 90% of applicants were found to be genuine ... leave your fantasy for someone who'll believe it By whom? Certainly not our current government. Just because some do-gooder says so doesn't make it fact.

I don't quite think that you nutjob conservatives have any ability to determine what is and what isn't a fact. ;D

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:07pm:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:01pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:55pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:51pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either. well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do. The refugee convention is designed for actual refugees and not plumbers from Pakistan who are chasing the money. over 90% of applicants were found to be genuine ... leave your fantasy for someone who'll believe it By whom? Certainly not our current government. Just because some do-gooder says so doesn't make it fact. By the govt. of Australia its not the politicians who determine their status, its the public servants working for the dept. of immigration ... are you trying to claim they are all incompetant?

I'd put money on it they are incompetent. The people in Syria displaced by ISIL are refugees. Some Tamil that was part of a war that's been over for a decade and hates the fact they lost isn't. Some Iranian who wants to sit on a beach and perv at women in bikinis isn't. That's why they have been knocked by and are enjoying some tropical anarchy.

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:11pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:07pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:01pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:55pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:51pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either. well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do. The refugee convention is designed for actual refugees and not plumbers from Pakistan who are chasing the money. over 90% of applicants were found to be genuine ... leave your fantasy for someone who'll believe it By whom? Certainly not our current government. Just because some do-gooder says so doesn't make it fact. By the govt. of Australia its not the politicians who determine their status, its the public servants working for the dept. of immigration ... are you trying to claim they are all incompetant? I'd put money on it they are incompetent. The people in Syria displaced by ISIL are refugees. Some Tamil that was part of a war that's been over for a decade and hates the fact they lost isn't. Some Iranian who wants to sit on a beach and perv at women in bikinis isn't. That's why they have been knocked by and are enjoying some tropical anarchy.

you do understand that each case is individual right? A person sitting in a town north east of ISIL "territory" where there has been no ISIL influence can hardly leave Syria and claim refuge. Just like a tamil who is still being abused/raped/kidnapped etc in Sri Lanka is still a refugee regardless of the state of the war.

You seem to be like longie - lacking brain to comprehend what the refugee convention and our migration act actually entail.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:13pm:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:11pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:07pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:01pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:55pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:51pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either. well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do. The refugee convention is designed for actual refugees and not plumbers from Pakistan who are chasing the money. over 90% of applicants were found to be genuine ... leave your fantasy for someone who'll believe it By whom? Certainly not our current government. Just because some do-gooder says so doesn't make it fact. By the govt. of Australia its not the politicians who determine their status, its the public servants working for the dept. of immigration ... are you trying to claim they are all incompetant? I'd put money on it they are incompetent. The people in Syria displaced by ISIL are refugees. Some Tamil that was part of a war that's been over for a decade and hates the fact they lost isn't. Some Iranian who wants to sit on a beach and perv at women in bikinis isn't. That's why they have been knocked by and are enjoying some tropical anarchy. you do understand that each case is individual right? A person sitting in a town north east of ISIL "territory" where there has been no ISIL influence can hardly leave Syria and claim refuge. Just like a tamil who is still being abused/raped/kidnapped etc in Sri Lanka is still a refugee regardless of the state of the war. You seem to be like longie - lacking brain to comprehend what the refugee convention and our migration act actually entail.

You'll just have to cry yourself a refugee river all the way to do-gooder nirvana because they aint getting in sweetheart. :'( :'( :'( :'(

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:11pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:07pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:01pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:55pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:51pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either. well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do. The refugee convention is designed for actual refugees and not plumbers from Pakistan who are chasing the money. over 90% of applicants were found to be genuine ... leave your fantasy for someone who'll believe it By whom? Certainly not our current government. Just because some do-gooder says so doesn't make it fact. By the govt. of Australia its not the politicians who determine their status, its the public servants working for the dept. of immigration ... are you trying to claim they are all incompetant? I'd put money on it they are incompetent. The people in Syria displaced by ISIL are refugees. Some Tamil that was part of a war that's been over for a decade and hates the fact they lost isn't. Some Iranian who wants to sit on a beach and perv at women in bikinis isn't. That's why they have been knocked by and are enjoying some tropical anarchy.

they're the same public servants now working for Morriscum ... :D :D :D

you're an idiot if you think everyone else gets it wrong and only you are smart enough to work it out.

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:44pm:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:11pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:07pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 1:01pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:57pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:55pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:51pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come And our government doesn't have to give them permission to enter either. well they can rescind the refugee convention if they like. But until then they do. The refugee convention is designed for actual refugees and not plumbers from Pakistan who are chasing the money. over 90% of applicants were found to be genuine ... leave your fantasy for someone who'll believe it By whom? Certainly not our current government. Just because some do-gooder says so doesn't make it fact. By the govt. of Australia its not the politicians who determine their status, its the public servants working for the dept. of immigration ... are you trying to claim they are all incompetant? I'd put money on it they are incompetent. The people in Syria displaced by ISIL are refugees. Some Tamil that was part of a war that's been over for a decade and hates the fact they lost isn't. Some Iranian who wants to sit on a beach and perv at women in bikinis isn't. That's why they have been knocked by and are enjoying some tropical anarchy. they're the same public servants now working for Morriscum ... :D :D :D you're an idiot if you think everyone else gets it wrong and only you are smart enough to work it out.

Who's the idiot. They certainly aren't taking your line of approach, are they??

Love your style, Animal Mutha

[smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

PZ547 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:55pm:

Love your style, Animal Mutha [smiley=tekst-toppie.gif]

Thanks. Cheers. :)

there's no accounting for taste

:D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 2:01pm:

there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D

Smith, I would have expected you to be more concerned with Italy, rather than Oz

Seen the recent news?   Italian government (of the minute) is offering Ities 30 Euros per night I think, to put up an illegal migrant

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 2:01pm:

there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D

one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff.

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 2:01pm:

there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D

You are a litmus test for the health of the people smuggling industry . When you're  happy with the issue most Australians  aren't. That's because there's burning camps, dead people, diplomatic concerns  and billions going down the toilet. When we (most Australians ) are happy it's not a mess. So who's in the wrong and has a misguided mindset???

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:41pm: actually, legally you ARE still doing something illegal.  What changes is that you have a valid DEFENCE against the act.  It might seem technical to you but it is a real distinction and is very apt here.  Seeking asylum after arriving illegally is fine but you are still committing an illegal act that has a DEFENCE of seeking and being granted asylum.  IF you are not granted asylum you have no defence. it is not a defence ... whats to defend? you've done nothing illegal and will never be charged ... no defence necessary

I think the nuances of this discussion is too much for you.

John Smith wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come

complete rubbish. NO ONE has permission to enter ANY COUNTRY illegally.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 2:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff.

so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law.

weird thinking...

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 3:00pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff. so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law. weird thinking...

No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll.

PZ547 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 2:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D Smith, I would have expected you to be more concerned with Italy, rather than Oz Seen the recent news?   Italian government (of the minute) is offering Ities 30 Euros per night I think, to put up an illegal migrant

I'm not surprised you thought that ... why would you start getting anything right now?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 4:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff. so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law. weird thinking... No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll.

no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 4:44pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff. so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law. weird thinking... No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll. no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law.

no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality.

And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee.

bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 5:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff. so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law. weird thinking... No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll. no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law. no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality. And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee. bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit.

wrong again.  DEFINITIIONALLY, breaking a law means acting illegally.  to think otherwise would require the kind of mental gymnastics you are employing (and still failing).

your understanding of what a refugee is and isn't is also pitiful.  A refugee is not hard to define - as long as they are outside the country.  But once they are here they either got here legally or illegally.  there is no 'refugee only' exception made to entry.  You come with permission with a visa issued by the aust govt (refugee or not) or you come illegally.

You are making any discussion on refugees impossible by insisting they have a RIGHT above that of the law to be here.  They don't.  Australia decides (by law) to accept around 20,000 refugees per year. WE CHOOSE. They don't.  They come with permission or they end up in detention because.... yes here we go again... THEY ARRIVED ILLEGALLY.

But I am still loving your insistence that it is possible to break the law and not be committing an illegal act.  That is a priceless mangling of logic and commonsense.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:08pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 5:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff. so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law. weird thinking... No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll. no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law. no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality. And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee. bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit. wrong again.  DEFINITIIONALLY, breaking a law means acting illegally.  to think otherwise would require the kind of mental gymnastics you are employing (and still failing). your understanding of what a refugee is and isn't is also pitiful.  A refugee is not hard to define - as long as they are outside the country.  But once they are here they either got here legally or illegally.  there is no 'refugee only' exception made to entry.  You come with permission with a visa issued by the aust govt (refugee or not) or you come illegally. You are making any discussion on refugees impossible by insisting they have a RIGHT above that of the law to be here.  They don't.  Australia decides (by law) to accept around 20,000 refugees per year. WE CHOOSE. They don't.  They come with permission or they end up in detention because.... yes here we go again... THEY ARRIVED ILLEGALLY. But I am still loving your insistence that it is possible to break the law and not be committing an illegal act.  That is a priceless mangling of logic and commonsense.

Wow that was the biggest load of garbage I have ever read. Well done, stupid ;D

1) We have a voluntary permanent resettlement program that takes in 17,000 people per year for PERMANENT resettlement.  But that doesn't extinguish our responsibilities under the refugee convention to ALSO process any claimant who has sought asylum from Australia. We just don't need to give them permanent settlement, but we must offer them protection if we find them to be a refugee. There is NO NUMBER clause on this. And if your donkey memory cared to work you'd remember the case only a few months ago where scum tried to suggest we didn't need to give protection visas to someone (say they are refugee under our domestic law) because we reached a quota, and he was SHUT DOWN by the high court.  You dip.

2) When you break the law you break the law. Some laws you break and it means youv'e acted unlawfully. Others you break and it means you've acted illegally. Go learn the law before commenting.

3) A refugee can NEVER be an ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  ;D  Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES?  A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal?  What? ;D

4) And there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine. Hence there is no punishment. You don't see us going, "Oh you are a refugee. We agree, here is your visa. Now we are arresting you or fininng you for breaking our law of entry."

You are a MASSIVE dipstick on this. Just stop while you still have some dignity left.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:08pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 5:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff. so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law. weird thinking... No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll. no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law. no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality. And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee. bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit. wrong again.  DEFINITIIONALLY, breaking a law means acting illegally.  to think otherwise would require the kind of mental gymnastics you are employing (and still failing). your understanding of what a refugee is and isn't is also pitiful.  A refugee is not hard to define - as long as they are outside the country.  But once they are here they either got here legally or illegally.  there is no 'refugee only' exception made to entry.  You come with permission with a visa issued by the aust govt (refugee or not) or you come illegally. You are making any discussion on refugees impossible by insisting they have a RIGHT above that of the law to be here.  They don't.  Australia decides (by law) to accept around 20,000 refugees per year. WE CHOOSE. They don't.  They come with permission or they end up in detention because.... yes here we go again... THEY ARRIVED ILLEGALLY. But I am still loving your insistence that it is possible to break the law and not be committing an illegal act.  That is a priceless mangling of logic and commonsense. Wow that was the biggest load of garbage I have ever read. Well done, stupid ;D 1) We have a voluntary permanent resettlement program that takes in 17,000 people per year for PERMANENT resettlement.  But that doesn't extinguish our responsibilities under the refugee convention to ALSO process any claimant who has sought asylum from Australia. We just don't need to give them permanent settlement, but we must offer them protection if we find them to be a refugee. There is NO NUMBER clause on this. And if your donkey memory cared to work you'd remember the case only a few months ago where scum tried to suggest we didn't need to give protection visas to someone (say they are refugee under our domestic law) because we reached a quota, and he was SHUT DOWN by the high court.  You dip. 2) When you break the law you break the law. Some laws you break and it means youv'e acted unlawfully. Others you break and it means you've acted illegally. Go learn the law before commenting. 3) A refugee can NEVER be an ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  ;D  Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES?  A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal?  What? ;D 4) And there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine. Hence there is no punishment. You don't see us going, "Oh you are a refugee. We agree, here is your visa. Now we are arresting you or fininng you for breaking our law of entry." You are a MASSIVE dipstick on this. Just stop while you still have some dignity left.

I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum.

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:26pm:

I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum.

opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact.  It's also  not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact.

learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:35pm:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:26pm: I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum. opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact.  It's also  not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact. learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey.

Yes mummy.

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 2:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D You are a litmus test for the health of the people smuggling industry . When you're  happy with the issue most Australians  aren't. That's because there's burning camps, dead people, diplomatic concerns  and billions going down the toilet. When we (most Australians ) are happy it's not a mess. So who's in the wrong and has a misguided mindset???

unlike you who is only happy when innocent people suffer so as to appease your racism

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 2:06pm:

When we (most Australians ) are happy it's not a mess

most Australians want asyulum seekers treated humanely and fairly ...

I'm not worried Animalmutha ... Karmas a bitch  ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 2:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:43pm: it is illegal to enter this and every other country without permission but they have permission, we gave them that permission when we signed the UN treaty.  They don't need to give permission to each individual asylum seeker before they come complete rubbish. NO ONE has permission to enter ANY COUNTRY illegally.

I'm not talking about entering illegally, seeking asylum is perfectly legal

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:45pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:41pm: actually, legally you ARE still doing something illegal.  What changes is that you have a valid DEFENCE against the act.  It might seem technical to you but it is a real distinction and is very apt here.  Seeking asylum after arriving illegally is fine but you are still committing an illegal act that has a DEFENCE of seeking and being granted asylum.  IF you are not granted asylum you have no defence. it is not a defence ... whats to defend? you've done nothing illegal and will never be charged ... no defence necessary I think the nuances of this discussion is too much for you.

I think waking up and breathing is to hard for you!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:08pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 5:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff. so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law. weird thinking... No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll. no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law. no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality. And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee. bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit. wrong again.  DEFINITIIONALLY, breaking a law means acting illegally.  to think otherwise would require the kind of mental gymnastics you are employing (and still failing). your understanding of what a refugee is and isn't is also pitiful.  A refugee is not hard to define - as long as they are outside the country.  But once they are here they either got here legally or illegally.  there is no 'refugee only' exception made to entry.  You come with permission with a visa issued by the aust govt (refugee or not) or you come illegally. You are making any discussion on refugees impossible by insisting they have a RIGHT above that of the law to be here.  They don't.  Australia decides (by law) to accept around 20,000 refugees per year. WE CHOOSE. They don't.  They come with permission or they end up in detention because.... yes here we go again... THEY ARRIVED ILLEGALLY. But I am still loving your insistence that it is possible to break the law and not be committing an illegal act.  That is a priceless mangling of logic and commonsense. Wow that was the biggest load of garbage I have ever read. Well done, stupid ;D 1) We have a voluntary permanent resettlement program that takes in 17,000 people per year for PERMANENT resettlement.  But that doesn't extinguish our responsibilities under the refugee convention to ALSO process any claimant who has sought asylum from Australia. We just don't need to give them permanent settlement, but we must offer them protection if we find them to be a refugee. There is NO NUMBER clause on this. And if your donkey memory cared to work you'd remember the case only a few months ago where scum tried to suggest we didn't need to give protection visas to someone (say they are refugee under our domestic law) because we reached a quota, and he was SHUT DOWN by the high court.  You dip. 2) When you break the law you break the law. Some laws you break and it means youv'e acted unlawfully. Others you break and it means you've acted illegally. Go learn the law before commenting. 3) A refugee can NEVER be an ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  ;D  Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES?  A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal?  What? ;D 4) And there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine. Hence there is no punishment. You don't see us going, "Oh you are a refugee. We agree, here is your visa. Now we are arresting you or fininng you for breaking our law of entry." You are a MASSIVE dipstick on this. Just stop while you still have some dignity left.

oh it just gets better.... breaking some laws is ILLEGAL and breaking others is UNLAWFUL...  good grief.  Do you even understand that those terms are IDENTICAL???

Please give me an example of an act that is illegal but not unlawful.

Bet ya cant!

your idiocy on this matter is incredible.  How does anyone debate with you when you want to redefine the meanings of words?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:08pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 5:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff. so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law. weird thinking... No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll. no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law. no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality. And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee. bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit. wrong again.  DEFINITIIONALLY, breaking a law means acting illegally.  to think otherwise would require the kind of mental gymnastics you are employing (and still failing). your understanding of what a refugee is and isn't is also pitiful.  A refugee is not hard to define - as long as they are outside the country.  But once they are here they either got here legally or illegally.  there is no 'refugee only' exception made to entry.  You come with permission with a visa issued by the aust govt (refugee or not) or you come illegally. You are making any discussion on refugees impossible by insisting they have a RIGHT above that of the law to be here.  They don't.  Australia decides (by law) to accept around 20,000 refugees per year. WE CHOOSE. They don't.  They come with permission or they end up in detention because.... yes here we go again... THEY ARRIVED ILLEGALLY. But I am still loving your insistence that it is possible to break the law and not be committing an illegal act.  That is a priceless mangling of logic and commonsense. Wow that was the biggest load of garbage I have ever read. Well done, stupid ;D 1) We have a voluntary permanent resettlement program that takes in 17,000 people per year for PERMANENT resettlement.  But that doesn't extinguish our responsibilities under the refugee convention to ALSO process any claimant who has sought asylum from Australia. We just don't need to give them permanent settlement, but we must offer them protection if we find them to be a refugee. There is NO NUMBER clause on this. And if your donkey memory cared to work you'd remember the case only a few months ago where scum tried to suggest we didn't need to give protection visas to someone (say they are refugee under our domestic law) because we reached a quota, and he was SHUT DOWN by the high court.  You dip. 2) When you break the law you break the law. Some laws you break and it means youv'e acted unlawfully. Others you break and it means you've acted illegally. Go learn the law before commenting. 3) A refugee can NEVER be an ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  ;D  Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES?  A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal?  What? ;D 4) And there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine. Hence there is no punishment. You don't see us going, "Oh you are a refugee. We agree, here is your visa. Now we are arresting you or fininng you for breaking our law of entry." You are a MASSIVE dipstick on this. Just stop while you still have some dignity left.

what you seem pathologically unable to understand is that being a refugee does NOT grant you entry into any country that signed that convention.  Firstly, it is a convention only ie not a legal document in the country and secondly, why do you think we have quotas on refugee settlement as does every other country?  Surely (according to you) they can go wherever they want, whenever they want.  In your make-believe world, being a refugee would be an enviable status. You can go anywhere, do anything and no one can stop you.  EXCEPT THAT THEY DO, because you point is nonsense and rather obviously so.

Quote:

BABIES born in detention will be classed as illegal boat arrivals and subject to the same ­offshore processing as their parents, under new laws ­designed to prevent them ­obtaining automatic Australian citizenship.

Perhaps the NEXT move could be
- when someone of "middle eastern appearance" is prosecuted for jay-walking,
their lineage could be traced back to some middle eastern country
- and they could be "deported" back to THERE ?

Quote:

Illegal arrivals in the past have used childbirth to milk taxpayer-funded welfare

Am I reading "news" here - or a Murdoch editorial/opinion ?

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 8:23pm:

what you seem pathologically unable to understand is that being a refugee does NOT grant you entry into any country that signed that convention.  Firstly, it is a convention only ie not a legal document in the country and secondly, why do you think we have quotas on refugee settlement as does every other country?  Surely (according to you) they can go wherever they want, whenever they want.  In your make-believe world, being a refugee would be an enviable status. You can go anywhere, do anything and no one can stop you.  EXCEPT THAT THEY DO, because you point is nonsense and rather obviously so.

fck me, you choose to continue to lose your dignity. Fair enough, it's yours to lose, dipstick.

To answer your garbage, you need to look at my Point 1), Point 2)  and point 3) because simply repeating absolute NONSENSE does not give extra credibility to your utterly stupendous argument.

1. there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine.   THIS IS A FACT. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT.

2. We have a quota FOR OUR VOLUNTARY PERMANENT SETTLEMENT PROGRAM.  But NOT FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROTECTION VISAS WE HAND OUT. THIS IS A F.A.C.T.  NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT.

3. The convention is made law via our domestic MIGRATION ACT which EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO ENTER THIS COUNTRY BY BOAT.  Not only that but it ALSO EXPLICITLY COMPLIES WITH NOT PUNISHING ANY REFUGEE FOR THEIR UNLAWFUL ENTRY.  THIS IS A F.A.C.T  No matter how many times you choose to ignore it.

You seem to have a problem with facts. Is this a religious thing, because it seems to happen too often with you jebus idiots.  ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 8:05pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:08pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 5:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff. so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law. weird thinking... No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll. no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law. no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality. And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee. bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit. wrong again.  DEFINITIIONALLY, breaking a law means acting illegally.  to think otherwise would require the kind of mental gymnastics you are employing (and still failing). your understanding of what a refugee is and isn't is also pitiful.  A refugee is not hard to define - as long as they are outside the country.  But once they are here they either got here legally or illegally.  there is no 'refugee only' exception made to entry.  You come with permission with a visa issued by the aust govt (refugee or not) or you come illegally. You are making any discussion on refugees impossible by insisting they have a RIGHT above that of the law to be here.  They don't.  Australia decides (by law) to accept around 20,000 refugees per year. WE CHOOSE. They don't.  They come with permission or they end up in detention because.... yes here we go again... THEY ARRIVED ILLEGALLY. But I am still loving your insistence that it is possible to break the law and not be committing an illegal act.  That is a priceless mangling of logic and commonsense. Wow that was the biggest load of garbage I have ever read. Well done, stupid ;D 1) We have a voluntary permanent resettlement program that takes in 17,000 people per year for PERMANENT resettlement.  But that doesn't extinguish our responsibilities under the refugee convention to ALSO process any claimant who has sought asylum from Australia. We just don't need to give them permanent settlement, but we must offer them protection if we find them to be a refugee. There is NO NUMBER clause on this. And if your donkey memory cared to work you'd remember the case only a few months ago where scum tried to suggest we didn't need to give protection visas to someone (say they are refugee under our domestic law) because we reached a quota, and he was SHUT DOWN by the high court.  You dip. 2) When you break the law you break the law. Some laws you break and it means youv'e acted unlawfully. Others you break and it means you've acted illegally. Go learn the law before commenting. 3) A refugee can NEVER be an ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  ;D  Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES?  A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal?  What? ;D 4) And there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine. Hence there is no punishment. You don't see us going, "Oh you are a refugee. We agree, here is your visa. Now we are arresting you or fininng you for breaking our law of entry." You are a MASSIVE dipstick on this. Just stop while you still have some dignity left. oh it just gets better.... breaking some laws is ILLEGAL and breaking others is UNLAWFUL...  good grief.  Do you even understand that those terms are IDENTICAL??? Please give me an example of an act that is illegal but not unlawful. Bet ya cant! your idiocy on this matter is incredible.  How does anyone debate with you when you want to redefine the meanings of words?

geez it's like arguing with a child who's just learnt what masturbation is.   Repeating the same over, and over and over again.

Dipstick, is jay walking, for instance, illegal?  Do you go to jail if you jay walk?

Check oxford dictionaries, I think you'll notice that I'm not redefining anything and you're just been your usual foolish self. 

And besides, you're still to tell me how a REFUGEE can be illegal.

John Smith wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 10:52am:

Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 8:06am: John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 7:51am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:36am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am: Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat. There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose. home where? they were born here? No. Home is the nationality of the parents. The child has dual nationality, not just Australian. Having a child here, has f-ck all effect on your chances of being granted asylum. It's a stupid article that's seized upon the yank term "anchor babies". It'll probably also enter common usage here amongst the brain dead. you have a baby overseas and see if the Aussie govt. will automatically accept it as a citizen ... not saying they won't but you can't just have a baby and then turn up at the airport expecting them to let him in there are loops to be jumped and someone in detention is not in much of a position to jump them

Those loops you referred to are being used very well by these people thanks to groups like the RAC, who pay for their legal challenges. Don't be fooled into thinking they're so helpless!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:09am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 10:52am: Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 8:06am: John Smith wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 7:51am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:36am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 6:33am: Good job Scotty boy! Send the babies to Cambodia, they make nice soup......at least it's a change from rat. There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose. home where? they were born here? No. Home is the nationality of the parents. The child has dual nationality, not just Australian. Having a child here, has f-ck all effect on your chances of being granted asylum. It's a stupid article that's seized upon the yank term "anchor babies". It'll probably also enter common usage here amongst the brain dead. you have a baby overseas and see if the Aussie govt. will automatically accept it as a citizen ... not saying they won't but you can't just have a baby and then turn up at the airport expecting them to let him in there are loops to be jumped and someone in detention is not in much of a position to jump them Those loops you referred to are being used very well by these people thanks to groups like the RAC, who pay for their legal challenges. Don't be fooled into thinking they're so helpless!

such as?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 10:30am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:23pm: what you seem pathologically unable to understand is that being a refugee does NOT grant you entry into any country that signed that convention.  Firstly, it is a convention only ie not a legal document in the country and secondly, why do you think we have quotas on refugee settlement as does every other country?  Surely (according to you) they can go wherever they want, whenever they want.  In your make-believe world, being a refugee would be an enviable status. You can go anywhere, do anything and no one can stop you.  EXCEPT THAT THEY DO, because you point is nonsense and rather obviously so. fck me, you choose to continue to lose your dignity. Fair enough, it's yours to lose, dipstick. To answer your garbage, you need to look at my Point 1), Point 2)  and point 3) because simply repeating absolute NONSENSE does not give extra credibility to your utterly stupendous argument. 1. there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine.   THIS IS A FACT. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT. 2. We have a quota FOR OUR VOLUNTARY PERMANENT SETTLEMENT PROGRAM.  But NOT FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROTECTION VISAS WE HAND OUT. THIS IS A F.A.C.T.  NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT. 3. The convention is made law via our domestic MIGRATION ACT which EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO ENTER THIS COUNTRY BY BOAT.  Not only that but it ALSO EXPLICITLY COMPLIES WITH NOT PUNISHING ANY REFUGEE FOR THEIR UNLAWFUL ENTRY.  THIS IS A F.A.C.T  No matter how many times you choose to ignore it. You seem to have a problem with facts. Is this a religious thing, because it seems to happen too often with you jebus idiots.  ;D

Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee!

Quote:

Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee!

It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa.
The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc. 

It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter.

.







I can see the High Court of Australia dealing with a few "issues" over someone born in Australia
- or its territories -
being denied Australian citizenship









.

buzzanddidj wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 8:15am:

Quote: Illegal arrivals in the past have used childbirth to milk taxpayer-funded welfare Am I reading "news" here - or a Murdoch editorial/opinion ?

the writer is obviously just dumb. A very poor contribution from this Meers fella - I wonder if he even finished Year 12.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:48am:

Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter.

it most certainly is.  you will be denied access and sent back on a plane or thrown into detention, refugee or not. 

I don't think you have any idea what 'illegal' and 'unlawful' mean.  But do I take it you have finally accepted that the words mean the same thing?  EXACTLY the same thing?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:35pm:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:26pm: I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum. opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact.  It's also  not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact. learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey.

PROVE IT.  And I mean it.  and btw do you know the difference between a convention and law?  breaking the former is a 'tut-tut' and the latter is a CRIME.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 10:30am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:23pm: what you seem pathologically unable to understand is that being a refugee does NOT grant you entry into any country that signed that convention.  Firstly, it is a convention only ie not a legal document in the country and secondly, why do you think we have quotas on refugee settlement as does every other country?  Surely (according to you) they can go wherever they want, whenever they want.  In your make-believe world, being a refugee would be an enviable status. You can go anywhere, do anything and no one can stop you.  EXCEPT THAT THEY DO, because you point is nonsense and rather obviously so. fck me, you choose to continue to lose your dignity. Fair enough, it's yours to lose, dipstick. To answer your garbage, you need to look at my Point 1), Point 2)  and point 3) because simply repeating absolute NONSENSE does not give extra credibility to your utterly stupendous argument. 1. there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine.   THIS IS A FACT. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT. 2. We have a quota FOR OUR VOLUNTARY PERMANENT SETTLEMENT PROGRAM.  But NOT FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROTECTION VISAS WE HAND OUT. THIS IS A F.A.C.T.  NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT. 3. The convention is made law via our domestic MIGRATION ACT which EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO ENTER THIS COUNTRY BY BOAT.  Not only that but it ALSO EXPLICITLY COMPLIES WITH NOT PUNISHING ANY REFUGEE FOR THEIR UNLAWFUL ENTRY.  THIS IS A F.A.C.T  No matter how many times you choose to ignore it. You seem to have a problem with facts. Is this a religious thing, because it seems to happen too often with you jebus idiots.  ;D

it says no such thing and never has.  If it did, then 20 years of action to stop boat entreis would be illegal and yet no one has ever said so.  Ever wonder why?

you are lying and I defy you to proved explicit proof of this claim.  You wont of course.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 10:41am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:08pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 5:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 4:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 3:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:05pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 2:01pm: there's no accounting for taste :D :D :D one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot ;D  It's great stuff. so says the clown that thinks it is not illegal to break the law. weird thinking... No wonder you believe in fairy tales, you're just very, very thick.  Look up the difference in legal terms, ESPECIALLY given the migration act is a LEGAL document, not a bogan's toilet roll. no, you actually said it is not illegal to break the law.  that is about as wrong as it is possible to get since the very definition of illegal is to break the law. no, dumby, what I said was that breaking the law does not always imply illegality. And, ONCE AGAIN, in any case this has nothing to do with whether a refugee can be ILLEGAL or not.  By definition a refugee can not be an ILLEGAL refugee. bugger me, the typical round and round with you.  worse than armpit. wrong again.  DEFINITIIONALLY, breaking a law means acting illegally.  to think otherwise would require the kind of mental gymnastics you are employing (and still failing). your understanding of what a refugee is and isn't is also pitiful.  A refugee is not hard to define - as long as they are outside the country.  But once they are here they either got here legally or illegally.  there is no 'refugee only' exception made to entry.  You come with permission with a visa issued by the aust govt (refugee or not) or you come illegally. You are making any discussion on refugees impossible by insisting they have a RIGHT above that of the law to be here.  They don't.  Australia decides (by law) to accept around 20,000 refugees per year. WE CHOOSE. They don't.  They come with permission or they end up in detention because.... yes here we go again... THEY ARRIVED ILLEGALLY. But I am still loving your insistence that it is possible to break the law and not be committing an illegal act.  That is a priceless mangling of logic and commonsense. Wow that was the biggest load of garbage I have ever read. Well done, stupid ;D 1) We have a voluntary permanent resettlement program that takes in 17,000 people per year for PERMANENT resettlement.  But that doesn't extinguish our responsibilities under the refugee convention to ALSO process any claimant who has sought asylum from Australia. We just don't need to give them permanent settlement, but we must offer them protection if we find them to be a refugee. There is NO NUMBER clause on this. And if your donkey memory cared to work you'd remember the case only a few months ago where scum tried to suggest we didn't need to give protection visas to someone (say they are refugee under our domestic law) because we reached a quota, and he was SHUT DOWN by the high court.  You dip. 2) When you break the law you break the law. Some laws you break and it means youv'e acted unlawfully. Others you break and it means you've acted illegally. Go learn the law before commenting. 3) A refugee can NEVER be an ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  ;D  Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES?  A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal?  What? ;D 4) And there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine. Hence there is no punishment. You don't see us going, "Oh you are a refugee. We agree, here is your visa. Now we are arresting you or fininng you for breaking our law of entry." You are a MASSIVE dipstick on this. Just stop while you still have some dignity left. oh it just gets better.... breaking some laws is ILLEGAL and breaking others is UNLAWFUL...  good grief.  Do you even understand that those terms are IDENTICAL??? Please give me an example of an act that is illegal but not unlawful. Bet ya cant! your idiocy on this matter is incredible.  How does anyone debate with you when you want to redefine the meanings of words? geez it's like arguing with a child who's just learnt what masturbation is.   Repeating the same over, and over and over again. Dipstick, is jay walking, for instance, illegal?  Do you go to jail if you jay walk? Check oxford dictionaries, I think you'll notice that I'm not redefining anything and you're just been your usual foolish self.  And besides, you're still to tell me how a REFUGEE can be illegal.

we might be onto something...  I think you think that 'illegal' means going to jail.  It doesn't.  it simply means 'against the law' and so yes, as trivial as it sounds jaywalking where prohibited IS illegal ie against the law.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?

So of you have truly odd views on the legal status of refugees.  Essentially they don't have a status at all.  Some of you think they can wander up, uninvited to any country in the world and no one can stop them.  Except of course in the real world, EVERY country stops them and detains them unless they arrived thru govt sponsored and approved visa.  no visa, no entry. end of story.  unable to return? detention.  end of story.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:46pm:

Some of you think they can wander up, uninvited to any country in the world and no one can stop them

who made that claim?


you seem to not understand what you are reading longy ! ... no one made that claim and if thats what you think people are saying then I now fully understand why you struggle with the issue:D :D :D

Well done Scot Morrison.

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:46pm: Some of you think they can wander up, uninvited to any country in the world and no one can stop them who made that claim? you seem to not understand what you are reading longy ! ... no one made that claim and if thats what you think people are saying then I now fully understand why you struggle with the issue:D :D :D

that's EXACTLY what alevine is implying.  Being a refugee only grants someone the opportunity to apply for resettlement.  it entitles them to nothing more and certainly not unlawful entry to a country without detention.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 7:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 9:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:46pm: Some of you think they can wander up, uninvited to any country in the world and no one can stop them who made that claim? you seem to not understand what you are reading longy ! ... no one made that claim and if thats what you think people are saying then I now fully understand why you struggle with the issue:D :D :D that's EXACTLY what alevine is implying.  Being a refugee only grants someone the opportunity to apply for resettlement.  it entitles them to nothing more and certainly not unlawful entry to a country without detention.

not it is not what he is implying

they are only detained until their identity has been confirmed and their status determined, if they are found to false they are shipped out, otherwise genuine refugees are granted asylum , the result of being granted asylum changes with the govt. of the day.....  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 4th, 2014 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 9:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:46pm: Some of you think they can wander up, uninvited to any country in the world and no one can stop them who made that claim? you seem to not understand what you are reading longy ! ... no one made that claim and if thats what you think people are saying then I now fully understand why you struggle with the issue:D :D :D that's EXACTLY what alevine is implying.  Being a refugee only grants someone the opportunity to apply for resettlement.  it entitles them to nothing more and certainly not unlawful entry to a country without detention. not it is not what he is implying they are only detained until their identity has been confirmed and their status determined, if they are found to false they are shipped out, otherwise genuine refugees are granted asylum , the result of being granted asylum changes with the govt. of the day.....  :D :D :D

you have no idea. you think like a child.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 6:36am:

There's nothing stopping them from going home at any time they choose.

Only the prospect of death, torture, imprisonment under third world laws, starvation, lack of opportunity, harassment, intimidation, gulag-ing, or whatever else passes for standards in their part of the world.

On the subject - I consider this a not unreasonable move - a child born to people not residents is a child born to people not residents.... and has no impact on the evalua6tion of those people for residency.

That said - the duty of care involved in detaining means that the child must be fed and cared for.

There is a world of difference between that and 'milking welfare'.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:19pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:48am: Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter. it most certainly is.  you will be denied access and sent back on a plane or thrown into detention, refugee or not.  I don't think you have any idea what 'illegal' and 'unlawful' mean.  But do I take it you have finally accepted that the words mean the same thing?  EXACTLY the same thing?

For the umpteenth time - what do people NOT understand about 'a claimant for refugee status has the right to be processed by the country from which he is claiming asylum, and the application for asylum is not illegal.'

Now - the ISSUE is what constitutes lawful processing............ and the fact of a government decreeing through regulation that a person who seeks asylum UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES will not ever be housed in the country from which he/she seeks asylum is one that needs to be tested in the proper courts for legality - free of charge since most asylum seekers are indigent.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 4th, 2014 at 9:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 4th, 2014 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 9:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:46pm: Some of you think they can wander up, uninvited to any country in the world and no one can stop them who made that claim? you seem to not understand what you are reading longy ! ... no one made that claim and if thats what you think people are saying then I now fully understand why you struggle with the issue:D :D :D that's EXACTLY what alevine is implying.  Being a refugee only grants someone the opportunity to apply for resettlement.  it entitles them to nothing more and certainly not unlawful entry to a country without detention. not it is not what he is implying they are only detained until their identity has been confirmed and their status determined, if they are found to false they are shipped out, otherwise genuine refugees are granted asylum , the result of being granted asylum changes with the govt. of the day.....  :D :D :D you have no idea. you think like a child.

it appears then that even a child can out think you  :D :D :D

you'd better go open another bottle longie , you don't want to be sober for to long, your brain will hurt

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:34pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:35pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:26pm: I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum. opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact.  It's also  not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact. learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey. PROVE IT.  And I mean it.  and btw do you know the difference between a convention and law?  breaking the former is a 'tut-tut' and the latter is a CRIME.

The refugee convention doesn't explicitly say to ignore the "legality" of the entry by a refugee? Are you seriously THIS STUPID? ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:37pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 10:30am: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 8:23pm: what you seem pathologically unable to understand is that being a refugee does NOT grant you entry into any country that signed that convention.  Firstly, it is a convention only ie not a legal document in the country and secondly, why do you think we have quotas on refugee settlement as does every other country?  Surely (according to you) they can go wherever they want, whenever they want.  In your make-believe world, being a refugee would be an enviable status. You can go anywhere, do anything and no one can stop you.  EXCEPT THAT THEY DO, because you point is nonsense and rather obviously so. fck me, you choose to continue to lose your dignity. Fair enough, it's yours to lose, dipstick. To answer your garbage, you need to look at my Point 1), Point 2)  and point 3) because simply repeating absolute NONSENSE does not give extra credibility to your utterly stupendous argument. 1. there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine.   THIS IS A FACT. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT. 2. We have a quota FOR OUR VOLUNTARY PERMANENT SETTLEMENT PROGRAM.  But NOT FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROTECTION VISAS WE HAND OUT. THIS IS A F.A.C.T.  NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT. 3. The convention is made law via our domestic MIGRATION ACT which EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO ENTER THIS COUNTRY BY BOAT.  Not only that but it ALSO EXPLICITLY COMPLIES WITH NOT PUNISHING ANY REFUGEE FOR THEIR UNLAWFUL ENTRY.  THIS IS A F.A.C.T  No matter how many times you choose to ignore it. You seem to have a problem with facts. Is this a religious thing, because it seems to happen too often with you jebus idiots.  ;D it says no such thing and never has.  If it did, then 20 years of action to stop boat entreis would be illegal and yet no one has ever said so.  Ever wonder why? you are lying and I defy you to proved explicit proof of this claim.  You wont of course.

The migration act says it is ILLEGAL to enter Australia by boat? Show me where.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:38pm:

we might be onto something...  I think you think that 'illegal' means going to jail.  It doesn't.  it simply means 'against the law' and so yes, as trivial as it sounds jaywalking where prohibited IS illegal ie against the law.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/business-career/legal/unlawful-versus-illegal

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:46pm:

So of you have truly odd views on the legal status of refugees.  Essentially they don't have a status at all.  Some of you think they can wander up, uninvited to any country in the world and no one can stop them.  Except of course in the real world, EVERY country stops them and detains them unless they arrived thru govt sponsored and approved visa.  no visa, no entry. end of story.  unable to return? detention.  end of story.

in the countries who have signed the refugee convention of course asylum seekers can rock up, seek asylum, and if found to be genuine then receive protection visa as a genuine refugee.

That part is clearly incredibly obvious. You're just not smart enough to comprehend that this is a FACT.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:48am:

Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter.

You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here???

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 6:06am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:48am: Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter. You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here???

if you were to get of that yacht and make your way to the nearest person of authority (or try to) and claim asylum, nothing you have done is considered illegal.

Have they entered the country YES, legally.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 6:06am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:48am: Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter. You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here???

omg are you trying to steal the misinformed award from longie? Relax, you guys can share it.

For the last time. It is NOT illegal to enter this country without a visa.  It is UNLAWFUL.  And if you're an asylum seeker who is found to have a legitimate refugee claim then IT DOESn"T EVEN MATTER because you END UP WITH A VISA.

SO... AGAIN...and HOPEFULLY FOR THE LAST TIME.... HOW CAN A REFUGEE BE ILLEGAL? 

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 11:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:48am: Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter. it most certainly is.  you will be denied access and sent back on a plane or thrown into detention, refugee or not.  I don't think you have any idea what 'illegal' and 'unlawful' mean.  But do I take it you have finally accepted that the words mean the same thing?  EXACTLY the same thing? For the umpteenth time - what do people NOT understand about 'a claimant for refugee status has the right to be processed by the country from which he is claiming asylum, and the application for asylum is not illegal.' Now - the ISSUE is what constitutes lawful processing............ and the fact of a government decreeing through regulation that a person who seeks asylum UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES will not ever be housed in the country from which he/she seeks asylum is one that needs to be tested in the proper courts for legality - free of charge since most asylum seekers are indigent.

and for the UMPTEENTH TIME...  what is so difficult to understand that arriving in ANY COUNTRY without permission (ie visa) is ILLEGAL, regardless of reason.  as successful asylum application may make the illegal act not acted upon but it does not change the fact that the first act was ILLEGAL.

serious... it isn't that hard to follow.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:34pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:35pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:26pm: I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum. opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact.  It's also  not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact. learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey. PROVE IT.  And I mean it.  and btw do you know the difference between a convention and law?  breaking the former is a 'tut-tut' and the latter is a CRIME. The refugee convention doesn't explicitly say to ignore the "legality" of the entry by a refugee? Are you seriously THIS STUPID? ;D

did you just say that the refugee convention DOESNT say that it is legal for a refugee to enter any country????  isn't that precisely what I have been saying?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:38pm: we might be onto something...  I think you think that 'illegal' means going to jail.  It doesn't.  it simply means 'against the law' and so yes, as trivial as it sounds jaywalking where prohibited IS illegal ie against the law.  http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/business-career/legal/unlawful-versus-illegal

did you even read it?  it stated that they are the same thing. the SLIGHT semantic difference has zero effect in law.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 8:59am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 6:06am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:48am: Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter. You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here??? omg are you trying to steal the misinformed award from longie? Relax, you guys can share it. For the last time. It is NOT illegal to enter this country without a visa.  It is UNLAWFUL.  And if you're an asylum seeker who is found to have a legitimate refugee claim then IT DOESn"T EVEN MATTER because you END UP WITH A VISA. SO... AGAIN...and HOPEFULLY FOR THE LAST TIME.... HOW CAN A REFUGEE BE ILLEGAL?

that is silly.  the words have IDENTICAL MEANING in law.  IDENTICAL.  no visa, no entry.  it is really that simple.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 11:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:34pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:35pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:26pm: I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum. opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact.  It's also  not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact. learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey. PROVE IT.  And I mean it.  and btw do you know the difference between a convention and law?  breaking the former is a 'tut-tut' and the latter is a CRIME. The refugee convention doesn't explicitly say to ignore the "legality" of the entry by a refugee? Are you seriously THIS STUPID? ;D did you just say that the refugee convention DOESNT say that it is legal for a refugee to enter any country????  isn't that precisely what I have been saying?

The refugee convention places no determination on whether a method of entry is legal or not. All it does is say that IN THE EVENT OF ILLEGAL ENTRY THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER.  In our case it isn't illegal, it's unlawful. And still doesn't matter.

So...if you were trying to talk about the refugee convention specifying the legalities of travelling then I'd suggest you need to brush up on conventions vs domestic law yourself, dippy ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 11:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:38pm: we might be onto something...  I think you think that 'illegal' means going to jail.  It doesn't.  it simply means 'against the law' and so yes, as trivial as it sounds jaywalking where prohibited IS illegal ie against the law.  http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/business-career/legal/unlawful-versus-illegal did you even read it?  it stated that they are the same thing. the SLIGHT semantic difference has zero effect in law.

you've read "unlawful and illegal can get you into trouble" as zero effect in law? Are you seriously THIS dam DUMB!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  I recognise most jebus worshippers have little ability to assess information, but the fact that unlawful acts can still get you into trouble is hardly the same as saying "zero effect in law."  There is a reason that the different terms are used at different times.  And as has been said time and time again, something unlawful is NOT illegal. It's UNLAWFUL.   

So, you can say that asylum seekers arriving without a visa are acting unlawfully. But not ILLEGALLY.  And, who cares in the end because they have every right to arrive unlawfully in this country and still seek asylum. Why? Because we are signatories to the refugee convention, which explicitely says so :)

And if they are proven to have a genuine claim then they are given refugee status. At which point there is NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT.  Hence, you CAN'T HAVE AN ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  Hence, you've been an idiot for 3 pages.  ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:49pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 8:59am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 6:06am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:48am: Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter. You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here??? omg are you trying to steal the misinformed award from longie? Relax, you guys can share it. For the last time. It is NOT illegal to enter this country without a visa.  It is UNLAWFUL.  And if you're an asylum seeker who is found to have a legitimate refugee claim then IT DOESn"T EVEN MATTER because you END UP WITH A VISA. SO... AGAIN...and HOPEFULLY FOR THE LAST TIME.... HOW CAN A REFUGEE BE ILLEGAL?  that is silly.  the words have IDENTICAL MEANING in law.  IDENTICAL.  no visa, no entry.  it is really that simple.

No they don't. Idiot, you can't even get that after reading about it.  dam stooooopid.

And again, HOW CAN A REFUGEE be illegal?  ;D

John Smith wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 8:45am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 6:06am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:48am: Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter. You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here??? if you were to get of that yacht and make your way to the nearest person of authority (or try to) and claim asylum, nothing you have done is considered illegal. Have they entered the country YES, legally.

wrong, dead wrong and you continue to state it in direct opposition to the law and to all information shown you.  Now this is where you say... 'prove it' and the cycle starts all over again.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 12:45pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 11:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:34pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:35pm: Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 6:26pm: I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum. opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact.  It's also  not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact. learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey. PROVE IT.  And I mean it.  and btw do you know the difference between a convention and law?  breaking the former is a 'tut-tut' and the latter is a CRIME. The refugee convention doesn't explicitly say to ignore the "legality" of the entry by a refugee? Are you seriously THIS STUPID? ;D did you just say that the refugee convention DOESNT say that it is legal for a refugee to enter any country????  isn't that precisely what I have been saying? The refugee convention places no determination on whether a method of entry is legal or not. All it does is say that IN THE EVENT OF ILLEGAL ENTRY THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER.  In our case it isn't illegal, it's unlawful. And still doesn't matter. So...if you were trying to talk about the refugee convention specifying the legalities of travelling then I'd suggest you need to brush up on conventions vs domestic law yourself, dippy ;D

PROVE IT.  show the text.  and keep in mind that it is a CONVENTION, not law.  it cannot make a legal determination of any kind that is applicable in Australia.  the UN simply does not have the right.  now if you want to quote the migration act where it says you can arrive without a visa LEGALLY then you have a point.  but you cant, because it doesn't.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 1:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 12:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 5th, 2014 at 11:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 7:38pm: we might be onto something...  I think you think that 'illegal' means going to jail.  It doesn't.  it simply means 'against the law' and so yes, as trivial as it sounds jaywalking where prohibited IS illegal ie against the law.  http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/business-career/legal/unlawful-versus-illegal did you even read it?  it stated that they are the same thing. the SLIGHT semantic difference has zero effect in law. you've read "unlawful and illegal can get you into trouble" as zero effect in law? Are you seriously THIS dam DUMB!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  I recognise most jebus worshippers have little ability to assess information, but the fact that unlawful acts can still get you into trouble is hardly the same as saying "zero effect in law."  There is a reason that the different terms are used at different times.  And as has been said time and time again, something unlawful is NOT illegal. It's UNLAWFUL.    So, you can say that asylum seekers arriving without a visa are acting unlawfully. But not ILLEGALLY.  And, who cares in the end because they have every right to arrive unlawfully in this country and still seek asylum. Why? Because we are signatories to the refugee convention, which explicitely says so :) And if they are proven to have a genuine claim then they are given refugee status. At which point there is NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT.  Hence, you CAN'T HAVE AN ILLEGAL REFUGEE.  Hence, you've been an idiot for 3 pages.  ;D

no one has ever accused Russians of being intelligent and you are surely proving the point.  in the context of Australian law - and in any dictionary or literature - unlawful and illegal are IDENTICAL.  The criminal act stats that homicide is an unlawful act.  Are you going to claim that it couldbe legal yet unlawful?

you are just taking over from the now disgraced peccahead  trying to imagine there is some difference between the words.  there is NONE as confirmed even by the article you linked to.

you really are turning into a very silly person and the motive is... to criticise Abbott.  that is all.  You are looking very silly.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 12:49pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 8:59am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 6:06am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:48am: Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter. You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here??? omg are you trying to steal the misinformed award from longie? Relax, you guys can share it. For the last time. It is NOT illegal to enter this country without a visa.  It is UNLAWFUL.  And if you're an asylum seeker who is found to have a legitimate refugee claim then IT DOESn"T EVEN MATTER because you END UP WITH A VISA. SO... AGAIN...and HOPEFULLY FOR THE LAST TIME.... HOW CAN A REFUGEE BE ILLEGAL?  that is silly.  the words have IDENTICAL MEANING in law.  IDENTICAL.  no visa, no entry.  it is really that simple. No they don't. Idiot, you can't even get that after reading about it.  dam stooooopid. And again, HOW CAN A REFUGEE be illegal?  ;D

A refugee "a person who is outside their home country because they have suffered (or feared) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political" is an illegal if found in another country!  Should they have a visa to be in that country they not be an illegal.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 4:33pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 8:45am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 6:06am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:48am: Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter. You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here??? if you were to get of that yacht and make your way to the nearest person of authority (or try to) and claim asylum, nothing you have done is considered illegal. Have they entered the country YES, legally. wrong, dead wrong and you continue to state it in direct opposition to the law and to all information shown you.  Now this is where you say... 'prove it' and the cycle starts all over again.

it is not dead wrong you buffoon ... and yes, it is up to you to prove your claim ... show me just one instance where a yachtsman was charged for illegally entering Sydney harbor ?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 5:43am:

Good job, Mr Morrison! Thousands of genuine refugees who did the right thing and have been able to come here are grateful for you saving their place instead of giving it to the queue-jumpers Labor and the Greens have so loved in years past.

Exactly.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 12:49pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 8:59am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 6:06am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:48am: Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter. You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here??? omg are you trying to steal the misinformed award from longie? Relax, you guys can share it. For the last time. It is NOT illegal to enter this country without a visa.  It is UNLAWFUL.  And if you're an asylum seeker who is found to have a legitimate refugee claim then IT DOESn"T EVEN MATTER because you END UP WITH A VISA. SO... AGAIN...and HOPEFULLY FOR THE LAST TIME.... HOW CAN A REFUGEE BE ILLEGAL?  that is silly.  the words have IDENTICAL MEANING in law.  IDENTICAL.  no visa, no entry.  it is really that simple. No they don't. Idiot, you can't even get that after reading about it.  dam stooooopid. And again, HOW CAN A REFUGEE be illegal?  ;D

a refugee cannot be illegal, but a refugee - like anyone - can commit illegal acts.  entering a country without express permission is an illegal act.  it is also unlawful and any other synonyms you come up with.  NO COUNTRY anywhere tells the worlds refugees that they can come any way they want and all will be forgiven.  That just exists in your head.

John Smith wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 5:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 4:33pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 8:45am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 6:06am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:48am: Quote: Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee! It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa. The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.  It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter. You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here??? if you were to get of that yacht and make your way to the nearest person of authority (or try to) and claim asylum, nothing you have done is considered illegal. Have they entered the country YES, legally. wrong, dead wrong and you continue to state it in direct opposition to the law and to all information shown you.  Now this is where you say... 'prove it' and the cycle starts all over again. it is not dead wrong you buffoon ... and yes, it is up to you to prove your claim ... show me just one instance where a yachtsman was charged for illegally entering Sydney harbor ?

unbelievable....  are you even aware of maritime law where you cannot even enter a countries waters without permission?  You seem to have this incredibly stupid idea that anyone can just roll up regardless.  I am staggered that anyone can be quite that stupid.  every nation on earth protects its borders.  every single one.  and yet you think anyone on a boat can come here legally.  There is no level of proof possible to convince you otherwise because that would require an intelligence and character you so obviously lack.

longy stop telling us how great you are and show me one instance where a sailor entering Sydney harbour was ever charged ????

You think you can just make up claims and everyone will believe them?

John Smith wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 7:06pm:

longy stop telling us how great you are and show me one instance where a sailor entering Sydney harbour was ever charged ???? You think you can just make up claims and everyone will believe them?

this is just getting more and more insane.  why don't you show me an example of a sailor just coming into Sydney harbour and entering the city unchallenged by customs.  Other than a couple of jap subs, I am aware of no such example.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 7:06pm: longy stop telling us how great you are and show me one instance where a sailor entering Sydney harbour was ever charged ???? You think you can just make up claims and everyone will believe them? this is just getting more and more insane.  why don't you show me an example of a sailor just coming into Sydney harbour and entering the city unchallenged by customs.  Other than a couple of jap subs, I am aware of no such example.

I've never claimed anyone entered the harbour unchallenged  ....

have you lost the plot completely?

John Smith wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 9:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 8:31pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 7:06pm: longy stop telling us how great you are and show me one instance where a sailor entering Sydney harbour was ever charged ???? You think you can just make up claims and everyone will believe them? this is just getting more and more insane.  why don't you show me an example of a sailor just coming into Sydney harbour and entering the city unchallenged by customs.  Other than a couple of jap subs, I am aware of no such example. I've never claimed anyone entered the harbour unchallenged  .... have you lost the plot completely?

well I suggest you just keep on believing the myths you create in your head.  you keep believing that our borders are not really serious.  the rest of us see the world as it actually is.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 6:43am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 9:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 8:31pm: John Smith wrote on Oct 6th, 2014 at 7:06pm: longy stop telling us how great you are and show me one instance where a sailor entering Sydney harbour was ever charged ???? You think you can just make up claims and everyone will believe them? this is just getting more and more insane.  why don't you show me an example of a sailor just coming into Sydney harbour and entering the city unchallenged by customs.  Other than a couple of jap subs, I am aware of no such example. I've never claimed anyone entered the harbour unchallenged  .... have you lost the plot completely? well I suggest you just keep on believing the myths you create in your head.  you keep believing that our borders are not really serious.  the rest of us see the world as it actually is.

is it like a cartoon in your head? are you Wile e Coyote? always trying but never getting it ??

Who said our borders are not serious?

For civilian vessels, you don't need any form of official permission to sail through Australian waters. You don't need a visa to travel through Australian waters.

It becomes an offense if those vessels birth or anchor anywhere other than at a proclaimed first port of entry - i.e. has customs and immigration facilities.

You will need a visa if you birth or anchor at a first port of entry - it doesn't matter if you intend to go ashore or stay aboard - although I think there's a few exceptions,

Life_goes_on wrote on Oct 7^th, 2014 at 8:45am:

For civilian vessels, you don't need any form of official permission to sail through Australian waters. You don't need a visa to travel through Australian waters. It becomes an offense if those vessels birth or anchor anywhere other than at a proclaimed first port of entry - i.e. has customs and immigration facilities. You will need a visa if you birth or anchor at a first port of entry - it doesn't matter if you intend to go ashore or stay aboard - although I think there's a few exceptions,

very true although I did have a chuckle at 'birth' vs 'berth' ;D ;D ;D

ooops
berth.
berth.

buzzanddidj wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 12:38pm:

. I can see the High Court of Australia dealing with a few "issues" over someone born in Australia - or its territories - being denied Australian citizenship .

FORMER Queensland solicitor-general Walter Sofranoff QC is at the helm of a legal challenge to the Federal Government’s decision to deny a baby born in Brisbane a protection visa because his parents were asylum seekers.

A decision in the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane is due tomorrow after a hearing before Judge Michael Jarrett today.

It has wider ramifications for 100 other babies whose statehood also remains in limbo after being born in Australia to parents who were denied protection visas after journeying by boat to seek asylum.

Baby Ferouz was born by caesarean at Brisbane’s Mater Hospital on November 6 last year.

His parents, who are from the stateless Rohingya ethnic group in Myanmar, were being held in detention on Nauru as “unauthorised maritime arrivals” following their entry to Australian waters by boat on September 15.

A subsequent application by Baby Ferouz, filed by his father, for a permanent protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, was declared invalid because it took the view he was an unauthorised maritime arrival, like his parents, and not a child born in Australia who should be afforded the same legal rights as any other.

Baby Ferouz now lives in immigration detention with his family in Darwin and has never known life outside a detention centre.

Mr Sofranoff, who appeared pro bono for Baby Ferouz, argued in court today the department was wrong to deny the now 11-month-old toddler a protection visa.

He argued the child could not be declared an unauthorised maritime arrival and an unauthorised citizen because he was born in Brisbane and did not arrive in Australia by sea.

Mr Sofranoff took Judge Jarrett to Sections 5AA, 10 and 78 of the Migration Act 1958, adding the court had to determine whether the legislation deemed being born an “act of entry” into Australia.

Barrister Geoffrey Johnson, for the department, said a non-citizen born in the Australian migration zone was deemed to have entered the country when they were born, as per Section 10 of the Act, and was therefore an “unauthorised maritime arrival”.

“That analysis is dependant not only upon the text of the provisions but is also contended with the content and purpose of the legislation,” he said.

He said the situation faced by Baby Ferouz and his family was not unanticipated by the legislature, and Section 5AA was to ensure those who arrived in Australia by a non-regular path did not obtain benefit or advantage by doing so.

“If a child is born in Australia whose parents do not have citizenship and do not have a vis, then the child is an unlawful non-citizen,” Mr Johnson said.

Baby Ferouz and 100 other children born to asylum seeker parents in Australia are being held in detention in Australia and will not be transferred to offshore processing sites until the test case is decided.

The hearing comes as the Federal Government considers amending the Migration Act to retrospectively declare all babies born to asylum seekers who arrive by boat to be declared unauthorised maritime arrivals, irrespective of whether they were born in Australia.

If the amendments are passed, babies born to asylum seeker parents in Australia will lose the right to apply for a permanent protection visa and should be transferred offshore to Manus Island or Nauru.

Outside court, Maurice Blackburn senior associate Murray Watt said he was pleased the case would be resolved quickly.

He expressed concern about proposed amendments to the Migration Act.

“If these amendments are passed, the Government will give itself the right to transfer Aussie kids to Nauru,” he said.

“The fact is there should never have been any question that babies born here deserve protection, but the Government have repeatedly and incorrectly denied these babies that right.”

The plight of Baby Ferouz and his family received widespread media attention last year when it was revealed the sick newborn, who was premature, was kept in hospital while his mother Latifar spent up to 18 hours a day in immigration detention in Brisbane.

Public backlash resulted in Immigration Minister Scott Morrison calling a departmental investigation into the family’s treatment.

Judge Jarrett will give judgment at 2.30pm tomorrow.

Comment has been sought from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in relation to proposed amendments to the Migration Act.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said previously the planned amendments reinforced the government’s view that the children of asylum seekers who are born in Australia should be included within the existing definition of ‘unauthorised maritime arrival’ in the Migration Act.

“This will ensure that, consistent with their parents, these children are subject to offshore processing and are unable to apply for a visa while they remain in Australia, unless I have personally intervened to allow a visa application,” he said.

I think there is clearly a loophole here though that needs addressing.