Australian Politics Forum - So are they illegal now?

BlOoDy RiPpEr Gold Member Offline aussie-patriot.com Posts: 2475 Sydney Gender:	Re: So are they illegal now? Reply #15 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:25am boat scabs would be another accurate label
Back to top	host of the aussie-patriot.com site IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #16 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:27am

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

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

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

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

NBNMyths

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 560
Gender: male

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #17 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 3:32pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Debunking the FUD on the NBN

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139923 Gender:	Re: So are they illegal now? Reply #18 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:20pm Infarction wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:48am: I can't figure out if Maqqa is the ultimate troll, or just completely retarded. A little from column A, a little from column B.
Back to top	IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 75280 Gender:	Re: So are they illegal now? Reply #19 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:24pm Infarction wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:48am: I can't figure out if Maqqa is the ultimate troll, or just completely retarded. My vote is for retarded ... he has to be!
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #20 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:30pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139923
Gender: male

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #21 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:36pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: So are they illegal now? Reply #22 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:40pm greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:36pm: Maqqa will tell you that "illegals" are people who have broken the law (he's not calling them illegal immigrants). He can't tell you which law they have broken, but he'll stay on that message until he's blue in the face. Migration Act section 4 sub 3 & 4
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

NBNMyths

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 560
Gender: male

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #23 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:43pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

s42
Quote:

(1) Subject to subsections (2), (2A) and (3), a non-citizen must not travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect.

      (2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a non-citizen in relation to travel to Australia:

                  (a) if the travel is by a New Zealand citizen who holds and produces a New Zealand passport that is in force; or

                  (b) if the travel is by a non-citizen who holds and produces a passport that is in force and is endorsed with an authority to reside indefinitely on Norfolk Island; or

                  (c) if:

                           (i) the non-citizen is brought to the migration zone under subsection 245F(9) of this Act or 185(3A) of the Customs Act 1901 ; and

                           (ii) the non-citizen is a person who would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen; or

s245F
Quote:

Powers of officers in respect of people found on detained ships or aircraft

(9) If an officer detains a ship or aircraft under this section, the officer may:

(a) detain any person found on the ship or aircraft and bring the person, or cause the person to be brought, to the migration zone; or

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

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

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:52pm by NBNMyths »

Debunking the FUD on the NBN

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #24 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:52pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If they are intercepted in the ocean, they immediately become lawful citizens, and are escorted to Australia as such. See s42(2c) and s245F (9a)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139923 Gender:	Re: So are they illegal now? Reply #25 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:54pm NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:43pm: Ummm. You seem to have missed the point. You get that a lot with Maqqa.
Back to top	IP Logged

NBNMyths

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 560
Gender: male

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #26 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:54pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If they are intercepted in the ocean, they immediately become lawful citizens, and are escorted to Australia as such. See s42(2c) and s245F (9a)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

"migration zone" means the area consisting of the States, the Territories, Australian resource installations and Australian sea installations and, to avoid doubt, includes:

                  (a) land that is part of a State or Territory at mean low water; and

                  (b) sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port; and

                  (c) piers, or similar structures, any part of which is connected to such land or to ground under such sea;

but does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory but not in a port.

Back to top

Debunking the FUD on the NBN

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #27 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:56pm

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

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

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

No

That's your assumption

Look at the definition of Migration Zone

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #28 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:58pm

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

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

Quote:

"migration zone" means the area consisting of the States, the Territories, Australian resource installations and Australian sea installations and, to avoid doubt, includes:

                  (a) land that is part of a State or Territory at mean low water; and

                  (b) sea within the limits of both a State or a Territory and a port; and

                  (c) piers, or similar structures, any part of which is connected to such land or to ground under such sea;

but does not include sea within the limits of a State or Territory but not in a port.

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

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

NBNMyths

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 560
Gender: male

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #29 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 4:59pm

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

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

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

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

No

That's your assumption

Look at the definition of Migration Zone

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

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

Back to top

Debunking the FUD on the NBN

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Is Maqqa ...
the ultimate TROLL ? 2 (25.0%) just completely RETARDED ? 6 (75.0%) Total votes: 8 « Created by: buzzanddidj on: Mar 14^th, 2013 at 12:43pm »