Australian Politics Forum - So are they illegal now?

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #30 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:03pm

NBNMyths wrote on 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.

so what is the limit of that sea?

Australian waters?

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

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 #31 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:04pm

Maqqa wrote on 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

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

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

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

Back to top

Debunking the FUD on the NBN

IP Logged

Luke Fowler

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 320
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #32 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:11pm

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

Maqqa wrote on 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

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

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

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

NBNMyths, you have the patience of a saint.

Back to top

The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad. Salvador Dali

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #33 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:21pm

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

Maqqa wrote on 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

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

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

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

The sea and the port

Which is in Australian waters

Australian waters is considered a sea installation

Therefore crossing it is a violation of the Act

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 #34 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 5:24pm

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

Coastal area

Quote:

"Coastal area" means the area comprising the waters of:

(a) the territorial sea of Australia; and

(b) the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea of Australia and not within the limits of a State or an internal Territory.

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 #35 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm

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

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

Maqqa wrote on 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

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

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

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

The sea and the port

Which is in Australian waters

Australian waters is considered a sea installation

Therefore crossing it is a violation of the Act

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

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

"sea installation" means:

                  (a) any man-made structure that, when in, or brought into, physical contact with the seabed or when floating, can be used for an environment related activity;

                  (b) any partly constructed structure that, when completed, is intended to be, or could be, a structure referred to in paragraph (a); or

                  (c) the remains of a structure that has been a structure referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);

Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation". Embarrassed

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

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

Coastal area

Quote:

"Coastal area" means the area comprising the waters of:

(a) the territorial sea of Australia; and

(b) the sea on the landward side of the territorial sea of Australia and not within the limits of a State or an internal Territory.

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

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:11pm 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 #36 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:08pm NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm: Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation". I said Australian waters as being a sea installation For a detailed explanation see section 9
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 #37 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:13pm

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

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation". Embarrassed

I said Australian waters as being a sea installation

For a detailed explanation see section 9

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

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

Back to top

Debunking the FUD on the NBN

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75280
Gender: male

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #38 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:16pm

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

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

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation". Embarrassed

I said Australian waters as being a sea installation

For a detailed explanation see section 9

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

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

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

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96736

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #39 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:20pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

They’re like Stalag 17.

Back to top

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 26483
Gender: male

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #40 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:23pm

greggerypeccary wrote on 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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96736	Re: So are they illegal now? Reply #41 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:24pm Maqqa wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:08pm: NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm: Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation". I said Australian waters as being a sea installation For a detailed explanation see section 9 Sea installation, eh? Anyone for behaviour protocols?
Back to top	IP Logged

NBNMyths

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 560
Gender: male

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #42 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:49pm

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

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

Perhaps you need to read the whole thread.

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

Sucks to be illiterate. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Debunking the FUD on the NBN

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: So are they illegal now? Reply #43 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 8:14pm Just to get back to the OP, where Maqqa claimed: Quote: if they are not illegal then there's no need to deport them. You don't deport someone who is in Australia legally. Just wanted to quote for the LOLs.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: So are they illegal now?
Reply #44 - Mar 13^th, 2013 at 9:07pm

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

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

NBNMyths wrote on Mar 13^th, 2013 at 7:03pm:

Can't see anything there about the sea itself being a "sea installation". Embarrassed

I said Australian waters as being a sea installation

For a detailed explanation see section 9

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

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

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

Back to top

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

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 »