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


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

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

So, once again, you're screwed. 

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


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

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

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

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

Effect where different parties to bill are the same person
             (1)  A bill may be drawn payable to, or to the order of, the drawer; or it may be drawn payable to, or to the order of, the drawee.

             (2)  Where, in a bill, drawer and drawee are the same person, or where the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract, the holder may treat the instrument, at his or her option, either as a bill of exchange or as a promissory note.

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



Show us where it says this

(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

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

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


'Unlawful' means not authorized by law.

'Illegal' means forbidden by law.

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

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

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


That is 100% incorrect.

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

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


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

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


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