longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2
nd, 2014 at 6:08pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2
nd, 2014 at 5:26pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2
nd, 2014 at 4:44pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2
nd, 2014 at 4:18pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2
nd, 2014 at 3:00pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2
nd, 2014 at 2:05pm:
John Smith wrote on Oct 2
nd, 2014 at 2:01pm:
one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot
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
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.
Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES? A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal? What?
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.
Forum
Pages: 
