Australian Politics Forum - No more ‘anchor babies’

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26043
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #75 - Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:28am

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

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. Grin

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!

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #76 - 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.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

buzzanddidj Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14205 Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC Gender:	Re: No more ‘anchor babies’ Reply #77 - 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 .
Back to top	'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.' - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #78 - Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 12:41pm

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.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #79 - Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:19pm

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?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #80 - Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:34pm

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

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.

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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #81 - Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:37pm

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

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. Grin

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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #82 - Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:38pm

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

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

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

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:

there's no accounting for taste

Cheesy

one has to enjoy it when one idiot complements another for being an idiot Grin

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 Grin

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. Grin

Tell me HOW THEY CAN BE ILLEGAL REFUGEES? A person who has received a refugee status can somehow be illegal? What? Grin

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?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #83 - 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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74824
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #84 - Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:16pm

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 Cheesy

Back to top

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

IP Logged

labor are corrupt Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1501	Re: No more ‘anchor babies’ Reply #85 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 4:35pm Well done Scot Morrison.
Back to top	The greens are poison. IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #86 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 7:54pm

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

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 Cheesy

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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74824
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #87 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:57pm

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

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

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 Cheesy

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..... Cheesy

Back to top

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

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #88 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 11:04pm

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

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

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

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 Cheesy

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..... Cheesy

you have no idea. you think like a child.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 84927
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #89 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 11:13pm

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'.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged