Make way for jetset asylum seekers
September 22, 2011

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2011/09/21/1226143/081377-asylum-seekers.jpg

About 9000 applications were lodged by air arrivals in the past 18 months - more than triple the number of refugee claims made by boat people.



ASYLUM claims by people who fly to Australia have doubled in the past five years, figures show.

About 9000 applications were lodged by air arrivals in the past 18 months - more than triple the number of refugee claims made by boat people

China was the biggest source of applicants, followed by Fiji, Pakistan and Iran, according to an Immigration Department report.

Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said it was virtually impossible for genuine asylum seekers to come by plane because of strict vetting of visa applicants by immigration authorities.

Ms Millbank said most people who arrived by air and then made refugee claims were manipulating the system to extend their stay in Australia.

"You can certainly say that these people are untruthful because they have to declare when they get a visa that they're not intending to apply for asylum," she said.

"They are no more deserving than the people who pay for people smugglers because in one case they are manipulating the system and in the other case they are trying to break in illegally"

About 6000 air arrivals lodged claims last year, compared with 3190 in 2005-06, said the report Asylum Statistics Australia 2010-11.

More than 90 per cent of Iranians, Afghanis and Iraqis were successful in 2009-10, while Chinese had a 42 per cent success rate, Lebanese (33.7 per cent), Fijians (16 per cent) and Indians (12.9 per cent).

Asylum Seeker Resource Centre spokesman Pamela Curr said the department did not publish figures on the number of people turned around at Australian airports before they had a chance to make refugee claims.

Ms Curr said some people on visitor and student visas made asylum claims in a bid to prolong their stay in Australia, but many air arrivals had genuine reasons for seeking refugee status.

"With the recent trouble in North Africa and the Arab world, we are seeing applicants from countries like Syria, Egypt and Bahrain," she said.

"We are also seeing more Iranians because of the unrest in Iran two years ago."

The report said there were 2172 asylum claims lodged by boat people last year, compared with 228 in 2008-09 and 21 in 2007-08.

In the first six months of 2010-11, the biggest number of refugee claims came from Afghanistan (1118). Then followed Iran (809), stateless persons (655), Iraq (405) and Sri Lanka (251).

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/make-way-for-jetset-asylum-seekers/story-fn7x8me2-1226143002905

So what?  they are authorised arrivals.  They have gone through the immigration process and obtained a Visa.

People arriving by unauthorised boats are illegal.  It's against the law.   That is the issue.   Border protection.  ::)

Quote:

In the first six months of 2010-11, the biggest number of refugee claims came from Afghanistan (1118). Then followed Iran (809), stateless persons (655), Iraq (405) and Sri Lanka (251).

Noone even knows where they come from, but we "know" that they are genuine refugees.  Righty-ho, that makes perfect sense.

What really get's my goat is the way the dubious Scott Morrison is 'pretending' that he 'cares' about boat people..like he's a real bleading heart advocate of caring for their safety. :D

Jezus...when will this Liberal lying bastardry end.

it's getting nauseating to watch them 'pretend' they care.

As IF they do.

My God I hope they end up completely destroyed as a party when australians fianally wake up to their filthy lies.

We have that nasty racist Cory Bernardi bringing anti Islam hate speech politician Geert Wilders to australia at the invite of the Liberal Party and we have HYPOCRITE Scott Morrison standing up in parliament with a tear in his eye for the refugees who will be lashed to death if he doesn't protect them from the government??? :'(

It's truly unbelievable ;D..Who are these ugly Liberals..who are the people who support them? They're not australian that's for sure..not the australians i'm proud of.

Cory Bernardi is spamming the internet with shocking abuse towards PM Julia..We have his SPAMMERS on this board too..prog is definately one..probably that macca thing too. ::)

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 11:29pm:

So what?  they are authorised arrivals.   They have gone through the immigration process and obtained a Visa. People arriving by unauthorised boats are illegal.  It's against the law.   That is the issue.   Border protection.  ::)

NO
They HAVEN'T
They "sneak in the back door" via TOURIST VISAS - and THEN apply for asylum i


Quote:

Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said it was virtually impossible for genuine asylum seekers to come by plane because of strict vetting of visa applicants by immigration authorities. Ms Millbank said most people who arrived by air and then made refugee claims were manipulating the system to extend their stay in Australia. "You can certainly say that these people are untruthful because they have to declare when they get a visa that they're not intending to apply for asylum," she said. "They are no more deserving than the people who pay for people smugglers because in one case they are manipulating the system and in the other case they are trying to break in illegally"

... with a LOT more cash

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 11:42pm:

What really get's my goat is the way the dubious Labor party doesn't even pretend that they care about boat people..like they are a real bleeding heart advocate of caring for their safety. :D Jezus...when will this leftwing bleeding heart self flagellation end, after more innocents die on the rocks it's getting nauseating to watch them 'pretend' they care. As IF they do. My God I hope they end up completely destroyed as a party when australians fianally wake up to their filthy lies. We have that nasty racist Cory Bernardi bringing anti Islam hate speech politician Geert Wilders to australia at the invite of the Liberal Party and we have HYPOCRITE Scott Morrison standing up in parliament with a tear in his eye for the refugees who will be lashed to death if he doesn't protect them from the government??? :'( It's truly unbelievable ;D..Who are these ugly Liberals..who are the people who support them? They're not australian that's for sure..not the australians i'm proud of. Cory Bernardi is spamming the internet with shocking abuse towards PM Julia..We have his SPAMMERS on this board too..prog is definately one..probably that macca thing too. ::)

That's spot on! Thanks for keeping the thread going cory. ;)

What really get's my goat is the way the dubious Scott Morrison is 'pretending' that he 'cares' about boat people..like he's a real bleading heart advocate of caring for their safety.

Jezus...when will this Liberal lying bastardry end.

it's getting nauseating to watch them 'pretend' they care.

As IF they do.

My God I hope they end up completely destroyed as a party when australians fianally wake up to their filthy lies.

We have that nasty racist Cory Bernardi bringing anti Islam hate speech politician Geert Wilders to australia at the invite of the Liberal Party and we have HYPOCRITE Scott Morrison standing up in parliament with a tear in his eye for the refugees who will be lashed to death if he doesn't protect them from the government???

It's truly unbelievable ..Who are these ugly Liberals..who are the people who support them? They're not australian that's for sure..not the australians i'm proud of.

Cory Bernardi is spamming the internet with shocking abuse towards PM Julia..We have his SPAMMERS on this board too..prog is definately one..probably that macca thing too.

A vote for Bernardi is a vote for racial and religious hatred and intolerance and sowing the seeds for a future Australian Holocaust so he must be denounced and sacked before the next election!

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 10:51pm:

China was the biggest source of applicants, followed by Fiji, Pakistan and Iran, according to an Immigration Department report.

Sticking to the theory that we create refugees when did we invade China, Fiji, Pakistan and Iran?

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 10:51pm:

Make way for jetset asylum seekers September 22, 2011 http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2011/09/21/1226143/081377-asylum-seekers.jpg About 9000 applications were lodged by air arrivals in the past 18 months - more than triple the number of refugee claims made by boat people. ASYLUM claims by people who fly to Australia have doubled in the past five years, figures show. About 9000 applications were lodged by air arrivals in the past 18 months - more than triple the number of refugee claims made by boat people China was the biggest source of applicants, followed by Fiji, Pakistan and Iran, according to an Immigration Department report. Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said it was virtually impossible for genuine asylum seekers to come by plane because of strict vetting of visa applicants by immigration authorities. Ms Millbank said most people who arrived by air and then made refugee claims were manipulating the system to extend their stay in Australia. "You can certainly say that these people are untruthful because they have to declare when they get a visa that they're not intending to apply for asylum," she said. "They are no more deserving than the people who pay for people smugglers because in one case they are manipulating the system and in the other case they are trying to break in illegally" About 6000 air arrivals lodged claims last year, compared with 3190 in 2005-06, said the report Asylum Statistics Australia 2010-11. More than 90 per cent of Iranians, Afghanis and Iraqis were successful in 2009-10, while Chinese had a 42 per cent success rate, Lebanese (33.7 per cent), Fijians (16 per cent) and Indians (12.9 per cent). Asylum Seeker Resource Centre spokesman Pamela Curr said the department did not publish figures on the number of people turned around at Australian airports before they had a chance to make refugee claims. Ms Curr said some people on visitor and student visas made asylum claims in a bid to prolong their stay in Australia, but many air arrivals had genuine reasons for seeking refugee status. "With the recent trouble in North Africa and the Arab world, we are seeing applicants from countries like Syria, Egypt and Bahrain," she said. "We are also seeing more Iranians because of the unrest in Iran two years ago." The report said there were 2172 asylum claims lodged by boat people last year, compared with 228 in 2008-09 and 21 in 2007-08. In the first six months of 2010-11, the biggest number of refugee claims came from Afghanistan (1118). Then followed Iran (809), stateless persons (655), Iraq (405) and Sri Lanka (251). http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/make-way-for-jetset-asylum-seekers/story-fn7x8me2-1226143002905

Amazing - the difference between the people who arrive by boat and those who arrive by air fails to dawn upon you! Let me spell it out for you.

(A) Those who arrive by air have come to Australia by legal means, with a passport, probably a visa, an airline ticket and other forms of identification that can be used to assess their application.

(B) Those who arrive by boat are attempting to breach our borders via illegal means and deliberately destroy any and all forms of identification and other relevant documentation to make processing their application a slow, tedious and very expensive task. More often than not, they do have the financial means to come via legal means but choose not to because they are too impatient.

Illegal immigrants are also far more likely to resort to violence and rioting when in detention because as they have already broken our immigration and border laws in trying to enter the country illegally, they feel a riot or assaulting Immigration Detention Centre staff can't harm their chances. I hope that clears that up for you so you can stop feeling sorry for these queue jumpers.

salad in wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 7:30am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 10:51pm: China was the biggest source of applicants, followed by Fiji, Pakistan and Iran, according to an Immigration Department report. Sticking to the theory that we create refugees when did we invade China, Fiji, Pakistan and Iran?

The whole problem with the boats has nothing to do with border security, really HELLO!! the security rubbish was a political ploy used by Howard to scare everyone into believing that for our own safety we should forget human rights and the implied rights in our constitution and deny these people justice through our legal system because it was just plain too fair.

The boat are by the method of arriving without prior notice and without visa's in limbo until the people's aboard are able to make clear their intention to apply for asylum status. This fine point has been a spurious use of the truth by the supporters of a system of off shore processing.

In the end these people are no more or less vulnerable than the plane arrivals, they just can not obtain a visa generally because they are unable the create a lie about their intended visit. This would make the boat people more honest in a way, they arrive with a clear intention and don't lie to border security where as others deceive the customs systems at the airport then apply.

I don't and never will support uncontrolled immigration. This country does not need more people no matter what Gerry Harvey says. We do need to help these people with compassion though and not treat them as criminals, they are all the most vulnerable in the world but they need to understand it is help not immigration and that returning to help build their own countries and develop their own communities is the goal in the system. If we can educate them as builders, engineers, doctors even as bureaucrat's we will be able to help them improve their own homes and if we treat them with decency and kindness we might even create a friend.  

If you post threads like this - you are deliberately giving the impression that arrivals by planes are treated the same as arrivals by boats

please provide the process of both types of arrival

in addition - by grouping plane arrivals with illegal boat arrivals you are deliberately trying to back Labor's policies with lies

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 11:56pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:29pm: So what?  they are authorised arrivals.   They have gone through the immigration process and obtained a Visa. People arriving by unauthorised boats are illegal.  It's against the law.   That is the issue.   Border protection.  ::) NO They HAVEN'T They "sneak in the back door" via TOURIST VISAS - and THEN apply for asylum i Quote: Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said it was virtually impossible for genuine asylum seekers to come by plane because of strict vetting of visa applicants by immigration authorities. Ms Millbank said most people who arrived by air and then made refugee claims were manipulating the system to extend their stay in Australia. "You can certainly say that these people are untruthful because they have to declare when they get a visa that they're not intending to apply for asylum," she said. "They are no more deserving than the people who pay for people smugglers because in one case they are manipulating the system and in the other case they are trying to break in illegally" ... with a LOT more cash

SO SOMETHING NEED TO BE DONE REGARDING OUR VISITING VISA SYSTEM... DOESNT IT.. THE FACT IS THEY DIDNT PAY A CRIMINAL TO GET IN TO THIS COUNTRY.

WHY IS IT THE MAJOR POINTS ON THIS PROBLEM SEEM TO ESCAPE THE HARDLEFT..

IF ITS SO BLOODY EASY TO GET A VISITOR VISA.. WHY DO THEY COME BY DANGEROUS BOAT???????????????????????????????????

it would have to be cheaper to come by plane anyway...WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU????????

cods wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:27am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:56pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:29pm: So what?  they are authorised arrivals.   They have gone through the immigration process and obtained a Visa. People arriving by unauthorised boats are illegal.  It's against the law.   That is the issue.   Border protection.  ::) NO They HAVEN'T They "sneak in the back door" via TOURIST VISAS - and THEN apply for asylum i Quote: Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said it was virtually impossible for genuine asylum seekers to come by plane because of strict vetting of visa applicants by immigration authorities. Ms Millbank said most people who arrived by air and then made refugee claims were manipulating the system to extend their stay in Australia. "You can certainly say that these people are untruthful because they have to declare when they get a visa that they're not intending to apply for asylum," she said. "They are no more deserving than the people who pay for people smugglers because in one case they are manipulating the system and in the other case they are trying to break in illegally" ... with a LOT more cash SO SOMETHING NEED TO BE DONE REGARDING OUR VISITING VISA SYSTEM... DOESNT IT.. THE FACT IS THEY DIDNT PAY A CRIMINAL TO GET IN TO THIS COUNTRY. WHY IS IT THE MAJOR POINTS ON THIS PROBLEM SEEM TO ESCAPE THE HARDLEFT.. IF ITS SO BLOODY EASY TO GET A VISITOR VISA.. WHY DO THEY COME BY DANGEROUS BOAT??????????????????????????????????? it would have to be cheaper to come by plane anyway...WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU????????

It's not only far cheaper to come by plane, it's also by far much safer than a leaky boat on the open seas...

salad in wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 7:30am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 10:51pm: China was the biggest source of applicants, followed by Fiji, Pakistan and Iran, according to an Immigration Department report. Sticking to the theory that we create refugees when did we invade China, Fiji, Pakistan and Iran?

precisely... you beat me to it..makes total rubbish of all their we INVADED SO WE HAVE TO SUCK IT UP...crap.

well we are definately getting the multicutral country that they aspire too

in that case I am sure that will keep the bleeding heart society happy..


gosh fancy us INVADING China who would have thought it.

cods


buzz does not know what he/she is saying if he/she is trying to compare asylum seekers via planes and so called asylum seekers via boats

(1) Asylum seekers via planes actually have paperwork therefore processing them is alot easier. You don't need to shift them offshore because with paperwork its so easy to verify

(2) Those who come by boats have little to no papers therefore processing is alot harder. You need to move them offshore because without paperwork they are trying to get into Australia through endless appeals through the Australian legal system.

nairbe wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 7:57am:

salad in wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 7:30am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 10:51pm: China was the biggest source of applicants, followed by Fiji, Pakistan and Iran, according to an Immigration Department report. Sticking to the theory that we create refugees when did we invade China, Fiji, Pakistan and Iran? The whole problem with the boats has nothing to do with border security, really HELLO!! the security rubbish was a political ploy used by Howard to scare everyone into believing that for our own safety we should forget human rights and the implied rights in our constitution and deny these people justice through our legal system because it was just plain too fair. The boat are by the method of arriving without prior notice and without visa's in limbo until the people's aboard are able to make clear their intention to apply for asylum status. This fine point has been a spurious use of the truth by the supporters of a system of off shore processing. In the end these people are no more or less vulnerable than the plane arrivals, they just can not obtain a visa generally because they are unable the create a lie about their intended visit. This would make the boat people more honest in a way, they arrive with a clear intention and don't lie to border security where as others deceive the customs systems at the airport then apply. I don't and never will support uncontrolled immigration. This country does not need more people no matter what Gerry Harvey says. We do need to help these people with compassion though and not treat them as criminals, they are all the most vulnerable in the world but they need to understand it is help not immigration and that returning to help build their own countries and develop their own communities is the goal in the system. If we can educate them as builders, engineers, doctors even as bureaucrat's we will be able to help them improve their own homes and if we treat them with decency and kindness we might even create a friend.

what a load of rubbish...they were landing in the early days all over the continent well the top end.. I remember reading of a group that wandered for something like two weeks...good one... we then realized how open our borders were..

is it really a crime to protect our borders??? which you seem to think it is.?...

the facts are... they are playing a dangerous game that will get more and more dangerous..these crims selling these passages dont care about their arrival... its all about who can pay the highest price.. get real...\

ts a business started up again by this govt... they are responsible and now they think they can stop it..byt threatening those that pay with being traded to malaysia.... now I ask you


IN FACT I ASK ALL OF YOU......WHY WOULD YOU BE AFRAID OF RISKING BEING TRADED TO A NICE COUNTRY LIKE MALAYSIA..????

IS THIS THE LABOR PARTIES IDEA OF COMPASSION?..

OR ARE THEY USING GOOD OLD FEAR AND HORROR TO PERSUADE PEOPLE THAT COMING BY BOAT  AINT RIGHT?


most of these people are fine strapping youing men from what I can see..boys seem to get a passage more do than girls... does anyone smell a rat??..

anyway I have said for a long time we need to impress on these MEN that yes they will be returned to rebuild their countries.. Iraqies in particular... need to go back and make it a better place for their children

if we had been inundated with Kurds I would believe all this asylum seeking.. but we werent.... I believe those that stand up to these dictators need out protection.. but I cannot believe its the millions that are flooding the world right now..and I dont believe its all men and boys either.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:35am:

cods buzz does not know what he/she is saying if he/she is trying to compare asylum seekers via planes and so called asylum seekers via boats (1) Asylum seekers via planes actually have paperwork therefore processing them is alot easier. You don't need to shift them offshore because with paperwork its so easy to verify (2) Those who come by boats have little to no papers therefore processing is alot harder. You need to move them offshore because without paperwork they are trying to get into Australia through endless appeals through the Australian legal system.

yes I know that macca and so does he... yet they keep pretending they are no different.. desperate thats all I can put it down too..or maybe wishful thinking that it will get gillard off the hook she has placed round her silly neck.

I dont know what our system is.. when they come in by plane and ask for asylum are they locked up or let into the country to wander at will??

dunno how it works..I have watched border control in England and they very rarely get asylum coming in by air..they get sent back.. must cost a bloody lot as well.

Most asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees.....They have every legal right to seek asylum no matter how they arrive in Australia.....They are only illegal if they are not granted refugee status.....Lets not let the truth be clouded in right wing rhetoric.....Stick to the truth when defending the treatment of asylum seekers and you might have a point.....Refugees did not sign the refugee convention that affords them these legal rights....that was done by Sir Robert Menzies the leader of the Liberal party at the time!!!


The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:54am:

Most asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees.....They have every legal right to seek asylum no matter how they arrive in Australia.....They are only illegal if they are not granted refugee status.....Lets not let the truth be clouded in right wing rhetoric.....Stick to the truth when defending the treatment of asylum seekers and you might have a point.....Refugees did not sign the refugee convention that affords them these legal rights....that was done by Sir Robert Menzies the leader of the Liberal party at the time!!! The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191

WRONG - less than half are assessed as genuine refugees.

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:54am:

Most asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees.....They have every legal right to seek asylum no matter how they arrive in Australia.....They are only illegal if they are not granted refugee status.....Lets not let the truth be clouded in right wing rhetoric.....Stick to the truth when defending the treatment of asylum seekers and you might have a point.....Refugees did not sign the refugee convention that affords them these legal rights....that was done by Sir Robert Menzies the leader of the Liberal party at the time!!!

Is that why only 43% got through via Nauru?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:57am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:54am: Most asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees.....They have every legal right to seek asylum no matter how they arrive in Australia.....They are only illegal if they are not granted refugee status.....Lets not let the truth be clouded in right wing rhetoric.....Stick to the truth when defending the treatment of asylum seekers and you might have a point.....Refugees did not sign the refugee convention that affords them these legal rights....that was done by Sir Robert Menzies the leader of the Liberal party at the time!!! The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191 WRONG - less than half are assessed as genuine refugees.

WRONG - most asylum seekers who arrive by boat are assessed as genuine.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:02am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:54am: Most asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees.....They have every legal right to seek asylum no matter how they arrive in Australia.....They are only illegal if they are not granted refugee status.....Lets not let the truth be clouded in right wing rhetoric.....Stick to the truth when defending the treatment of asylum seekers and you might have a point.....Refugees did not sign the refugee convention that affords them these legal rights....that was done by Sir Robert Menzies the leader of the Liberal party at the time!!! Is that why only 43% got through via Nauru?

and the other 30 odd % that went to NZ, why do you continually ignore these?
Maybe because it helps you put a spin on the numbers?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:57am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:54am: Most asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees.....They have every legal right to seek asylum no matter how they arrive in Australia.....They are only illegal if they are not granted refugee status.....Lets not let the truth be clouded in right wing rhetoric.....Stick to the truth when defending the treatment of asylum seekers and you might have a point.....Refugees did not sign the refugee convention that affords them these legal rights....that was done by Sir Robert Menzies the leader of the Liberal party at the time!!! The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191 WRONG - less than half are assessed as genuine refugees.

Bullshit....If you want to make such claims then post a link to support your claims.....It would stop you looking so foolish!!!

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf


Although the proportion of asylum seekers arriving by boat has increased significantly in the last financial year, and boat arrivals continue to be the focus of much public and political attention, they are in fact more likely to be recognised as refugees than those who have arrived by air. Dr Khalid Koser (Lowy Institute for International Policy) notes that:

The reason this ... point is important is that it means that arguably Australia is worrying about the wrong asylum seekers. Whereas the majority of those arriving by boat are refugees, the majority of those arriving by air are not.

Are boat arrivals ‘genuine refugees’?

Asylum seekers who arrive by boat are subject to the same assessment criteria as all other asylum applicants. Past figures show that between 70 and 97 per cent of asylum seekers arriving by boat at different times have been found to be refugees and granted protection either in Australia or in another country.

For example:

• according to the Refugee Council of Australia, in 1998–99, approximately 97 per cent of Iraqi and 92 per cent of Afghan applicants (the majority of whom would have arrived by boat) were granted refugee status and given permanent protection visas

• under the ‘Pacific Solution’ a total of 1637 unauthorised arrivals were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities between September 2001 and February 2008. Of those, 1153 (70 per cent) were found to be refugees and ultimately resettled to Australia or other countries.

• during the Rudd Government approximately 90–95 per cent of assessments completed on Christmas Island resulted in protection visas being granted. For example, of the 1254 claims assessed on Christmas Island between 1 July 2009 and 31 January 2010, only 110 people were assessed as not being refugees.36 These figures suggest that 1144 (approximately 91 per cent) of those claims were successful.

Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes.
Jawaharlal Nehru (1889 - 1964)

cods wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:51am:

yes I know that macca and so does he... yet they keep pretending they are no different.. desperate thats all I can put it down too..or maybe wishful thinking that it will get gillard off the hook she has placed round her silly neck. I dont know what our system is.. when they come in by plane and ask for asylum are they locked up or let into the country to wander at will?? dunno how it works..I have watched border control in England and they very rarely get asylum coming in by air..they get sent back.. must cost a bloody lot as well.

The process is this

(1) They have paperwork ie they have an approved VISA to enter Australia for a period of 3 months anyway

(2) Their application for asylum is assessed. No medical assessment is needed because it's all done when they did their VISA

(3) If the processing takes more than 3 months ie their VISA have now expired - they are TECHNICALLY in Australia illegally so they are detained onshore in say Villawood - but most are given refugee status because they have paperwork

Much easier to process if they have paperwork


buzz and the rest are trying to tell you that the context of being ILLEGAL via overstaying a VISA is the same as entering Australia WITHOUT a VISA

They are saying illegal is illegal and should be treated the same

I wonder if they are happy to apply the same "illegal is illegal" argument to other areas of the law?

take for example killing someone is ILLEGAL - but what is the treatment for someone who kills out of self defense compared to someone who premeditate their killing

illegal is illegal  :-?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:02am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:54am: Most asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees.....They have every legal right to seek asylum no matter how they arrive in Australia.....They are only illegal if they are not granted refugee status.....Lets not let the truth be clouded in right wing rhetoric.....Stick to the truth when defending the treatment of asylum seekers and you might have a point.....Refugees did not sign the refugee convention that affords them these legal rights....that was done by Sir Robert Menzies the leader of the Liberal party at the time!!! Is that why only 43% got through via Nauru?

Bullshit!!!

• under the ‘Pacific Solution’ a total of 1637 unauthorised arrivals were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities between September 2001 and February 2008. Of those, 1153 (70 per cent) were found to be refugees and ultimately resettled to Australia or other countries.

Why do you bother trying to prove me wrong.....Are you stupid or a liar....which one is it???

:)

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:17am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:02am: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:54am: Most asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees.....They have every legal right to seek asylum no matter how they arrive in Australia.....They are only illegal if they are not granted refugee status.....Lets not let the truth be clouded in right wing rhetoric.....Stick to the truth when defending the treatment of asylum seekers and you might have a point.....Refugees did not sign the refugee convention that affords them these legal rights....that was done by Sir Robert Menzies the leader of the Liberal party at the time!!! Is that why only 43% got through via Nauru? Bullshit!!! • under the ‘Pacific Solution’ a total of 1637 unauthorised arrivals were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities between September 2001 and February 2008. Of those, 1153 (70 per cent) were found to be refugees and ultimately resettled to Australia or other countries. Why do you bother trying to prove me wrong.....Are you stupid or a liar....which one is it??? :)

Your selectiveness with the truth is amusing. Your quote says 70 percent resettled to Australia or other countries. It doesn't say 70 percent resettled to Australia only. Only 43 percent ended up here.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:13am:

cods wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:51am: yes I know that macca and so does he... yet they keep pretending they are no different.. desperate thats all I can put it down too..or maybe wishful thinking that it will get gillard off the hook she has placed round her silly neck. I dont know what our system is.. when they come in by plane and ask for asylum are they locked up or let into the country to wander at will?? dunno how it works..I have watched border control in England and they very rarely get asylum coming in by air..they get sent back.. must cost a bloody lot as well. The process is this (1) They have paperwork ie they have an approved VISA to enter Australia for a period of 3 months anyway (2) Their application for asylum is assessed. No medical assessment is needed because it's all done when they did their VISA (3) If the processing takes more than 3 months ie their VISA have now expired - they are TECHNICALLY in Australia illegally so they are detained onshore in say Villawood - but most are given refugee status because they have paperwork Much easier to process if they have paperwork buzz and the rest are trying to tell you that the context of being ILLEGAL via overstaying a VISA is the same as entering Australia WITHOUT a VISA They are saying illegal is illegal and should be treated the same I wonder if they are happy to apply the same "illegal is illegal" argument to other areas of the law? take for example killing someone is ILLEGAL - but what is the treatment for someone who kills out of self defense compared to someone who premeditate their killing illegal is illegal  :-?

Neither are illegal......how you arrive in a country has nothing to do with seeking asylum.....Claiming boat arrivals are illegal is a false argument that has no bearing in fact or the law.....The law is the law.....You have no idea do you???

:)

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:13am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:57am: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:54am: Most asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees.....They have every legal right to seek asylum no matter how they arrive in Australia.....They are only illegal if they are not granted refugee status.....Lets not let the truth be clouded in right wing rhetoric.....Stick to the truth when defending the treatment of asylum seekers and you might have a point.....Refugees did not sign the refugee convention that affords them these legal rights....that was done by Sir Robert Menzies the leader of the Liberal party at the time!!! The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191 WRONG - less than half are assessed as genuine refugees. Bullshit....If you want to make such claims then post a link to support your claims.....It would stop you looking so foolish!!! http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf Although the proportion of asylum seekers arriving by boat has increased significantly in the last financial year, and boat arrivals continue to be the focus of much public and political attention, they are in fact more likely to be recognised as refugees than those who have arrived by air. Dr Khalid Koser (Lowy Institute for International Policy) notes that: The reason this ... point is important is that it means that arguably Australia is worrying about the wrong asylum seekers. Whereas the majority of those arriving by boat are refugees, the majority of those arriving by air are not. Are boat arrivals ‘genuine refugees’? Asylum seekers who arrive by boat are subject to the same assessment criteria as all other asylum applicants. Past figures show that between 70 and 97 per cent of asylum seekers arriving by boat at different times have been found to be refugees and granted protection either in Australia or in another country. For example: • according to the Refugee Council of Australia, in 1998–99, approximately 97 per cent of Iraqi and 92 per cent of Afghan applicants (the majority of whom would have arrived by boat) were granted refugee status and given permanent protection visas • under the ‘Pacific Solution’ a total of 1637 unauthorised arrivals were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities between September 2001 and February 2008. Of those, 1153 (70 per cent) were found to be refugees and ultimately resettled to Australia or other countries. • during the Rudd Government approximately 90–95 per cent of assessments completed on Christmas Island resulted in protection visas being granted. For example, of the 1254 claims assessed on Christmas Island between 1 July 2009 and 31 January 2010, only 110 people were assessed as not being refugees.36 These figures suggest that 1144 (approximately 91 per cent) of those claims were successful. Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes. Jawaharlal Nehru (1889 - 1964)

I noticed that Gillard is trying to produce a document differentiating between "asylum seekers" and a "refugee"

It assume they are all refugees

Why are is Gillard using Refugee Council of Australia numbers rather than their own numbers?

I note that they are mashing their figures by saying phrases like  "arriving by boat at different times" ie taking this back to the Vietnamese boats day

so much inconsistencies means its a propaganda piece

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:23am:

Neither are illegal......how you arrive in a country has nothing to do with seeking asylum.....Claiming boat arrivals are illegal is a false argument that has no bearing in fact or the law.....The law is the law.....You have no idea do you??? :)

Point 1
Correct - but the paperwork you have entering this country determines whether you are illegal or not

Point 2
I've never claimed boat arrivals are illegal. I've always said if you enter Australia without a VISA is illegal

Point 3
Yes it is and yes I do. Clearly you dont

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:27am:

Point 2 I've never claimed boat arrivals are illegal. I've always said if you enter Australia without a VISA is illegal

Unless (of course) you can demonstrate you are escaping persecution from your country of origin and you are seeking refuge from that persecution and you declare yourself as such.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:21am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:17am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:02am: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:54am: Most asylum seekers arriving by boat are genuine refugees.....They have every legal right to seek asylum no matter how they arrive in Australia.....They are only illegal if they are not granted refugee status.....Lets not let the truth be clouded in right wing rhetoric.....Stick to the truth when defending the treatment of asylum seekers and you might have a point.....Refugees did not sign the refugee convention that affords them these legal rights....that was done by Sir Robert Menzies the leader of the Liberal party at the time!!! Is that why only 43% got through via Nauru? Bullshit!!! • under the ‘Pacific Solution’ a total of 1637 unauthorised arrivals were detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities between September 2001 and February 2008. Of those, 1153 (70 per cent) were found to be refugees and ultimately resettled to Australia or other countries. Why do you bother trying to prove me wrong.....Are you stupid or a liar....which one is it??? :) Your selectiveness with the truth is amusing. Your quote says 70 percent resettled to Australia or other countries. It doesn't say 70 percent resettled to Australia only. Only 43 percent ended up here.

70% of asylum seekers resettled to Australia or other countries.....Stating that only 43% where settled in Australia ignores the fact that 70% where in fact found to be genuine refugees....You can twist the stats to suit yourself however the fact remains.....Most people arriving by boat are found to be genuine refugees....It was the deliberate quote of 43% by Macca that was being selective with the truth!!!

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), (attributed)

The 'boat people' hysteria has always been (and always will be) a 'white trash' Australian phenomenon of the 'bugger off we're full' kind

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:38am:

70% of asylum seekers resettled to Australia or other countries.....Stating that only 43% where settled in Australia ignores the fact that 70% where in fact found to be genuine refugees....You can twist the stats to suit yourself however the fact remains.....Most people arriving by boat are found to be genuine refugees....It was the deliberate quote of 43% by Macca that was being selective with the truth!!!

I thought we are talking about Australia?

And if the illegals are claiming asylum in Australia then they would want to stay in Australia!!

The only reason why they wouldn't stay is because they were rejected

so 43% is correct

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:36am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:27am: Point 2 I've never claimed boat arrivals are illegal. I've always said if you enter Australia without a VISA is illegal Unless (of course) you can demonstrate you are escaping persecution from your country of origin and you are seeking refuge from that persecution and you declare yourself as such.

and until you can demonstrate it - then you are classified as ILLEGAL if you arrive here without a VISA

nairbe wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 7:57am:

The whole problem with the boats has nothing to do with border security, really HELLO!! the security rubbish was a political ploy used by Howard to scare everyone into believing that for our own safety we should forget human rights and the implied rights in our constitution and deny these people justice through our legal system because it was just plain too fair. The boat are by the method of arriving without prior notice and without visa's in limbo until the people's aboard are able to make clear their intention to apply for asylum status. This fine point has been a spurious use of the truth by the supporters of a system of off shore processing. In the end these people are no more or less vulnerable than the plane arrivals, they just can not obtain a visa generally because they are unable the create a lie about their intended visit. This would make the boat people more honest in a way, they arrive with a clear intention and don't lie to border security where as others deceive the customs systems at the airport then apply. I don't and never will support uncontrolled immigration. This country does not need more people no matter what Gerry Harvey says. We do need to help these people with compassion though and not treat them as criminals, they are all the most vulnerable in the world but they need to understand it is help not immigration and that returning to help build their own countries and develop their own communities is the goal in the system. If we can educate them as builders, engineers, doctors even as bureaucrat's we will be able to help them improve their own homes and if we treat them with decency and kindness we might even create a friend.

Good call. However pre-dating the refugee convention is the Australian Constitution. What does it say?


Quote:

Australian Constitution - Section 51 - Legislative powers of the Parliament The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:- (xix.) Naturalization and aliens: (xxvi.) The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws: (xxvii.) Immigration and emigration: (xxviii.) The influx of criminals: http://australianpolitics.com/text/51.shtml

The Australian Constitution has room for alleged refugees, asylum shoppers and queue jumpers. The Australian Constitution makes no mention of the refugee convention nor does it empower our elected government to cede power to the UN or any other body. If you are unhappy with the wording of the Australian Constitution the only remedy is a referendum. Also, when I vote I haven’t seen Ban Ki-moon’s name on any ballot paper.

How do I want my country run? I want it run for the benefit of Australians. The human rights you speak of exist in the countries some of these people are fleeing. Our cricket team has just finished a tour of Sri Lanka and I didn’t see any tanks in the streets of Kandy or Columbo. The Islamic world boasts that it gave rights to women well before any Western nation. We should not take any muslims into our country because they are immiscible with Western countries.

Some of the countries people are leaving have bad leaders or bad governments. Is that my fault? Why should I feel guilty about their failings?

Here is the much lauded and codified human rights granted by the alleged religion of Islam. Please inform the debate if you know of any objections raised by the UN about the wording of the document.


Quote:

Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights 21 Dhul Qaidah 1401 19 September 1981 Contents Foreword Preamble I  Right to Life II  Right to Freedom III  Right to Equality and Prohibition Against Impermissible Discrimination Etc. http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html

Muslims even have their own HRC. Why come to Australia to sort out your problems?


Quote:

About IHRC The Islamic Human Rights Commission was set up in 1997. We are an independent, not-for-profit, campaign, research and advocacy organization based in London, UK. We have consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. We work with different organizations from Muslim and non-Muslim backgrounds, to campaign for justice for all peoples regardless of their racial, confessional or political background. Our research work includes submitting reports to governments and international organizations, writing articles, monitoring the media, cataloguing war crimes and producing research papers on hate crime, discrimination, the nature of human rights and so on. Our work at the UN brings together different aspects from all of IHRC’s work. The campaigns section produces alerts and works on short and long term campaigns, often including organizing vigils, letter writing campaigns, exhibitions etc. Our advocacy involves referring and taking on discrimination cases and cases that we can offer real assistance on. [...] http://www.ihrc.org/

Am I worried about muslims, Tamils Sri Lankans, Iranians or others? No, I am more worried about the number of children in the Westmead Children’s Hospital in the terminal ward waiting to die. What can we do to save them? Why not spend money trying to find a cure for childhood leukaemia, SIDS and other maladies rather than waste money sorting out who is or is not an alleged refugee or asylum shopper.

In the 1967 Australian Referendum, putting to the people the question :


Quote:

Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled 'An Act to alter the Constitution' so as to omit certain words relating to the people of the Aboriginal race in any state so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the population?

90.77% of people voted for the alteration....

Leaving a 9.23% against.

I'd bet that the descendants of those 9.23% (either genetically or culturally) are the white trash who are afflicted with 'boat people' hysteria.

Double post...sorrrrrrrry.

Last time I looked it was Australia that invaded Afghanistan and Iraq which helped to create this wave of reffos..so yes, it is our problem because it is a problem of our own doing.
Why do the neo cons want us to push our problems onto our neighbours who had nothing to do with both invasions?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:46am:

In the 1967 Australian Referendum, putting to the people the question : Quote: Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled 'An Act to alter the Constitution' so as to omit certain words relating to the people of the Aboriginal race in any state so that Aboriginals are to be counted in reckoning the population? 90.77% of people voted for the alteration.... Leaving a 9.23% against. I'd bet that the descendants of those 9.23% (either genetically or culturally) are the white trash who are afflicted with 'boat people' hysteria.

The Greens are now sitting at about 12% so their population seems to have grown

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:44am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:36am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:27am: Point 2 I've never claimed boat arrivals are illegal. I've always said if you enter Australia without a VISA is illegal Unless (of course) you can demonstrate you are escaping persecution from your country of origin and you are seeking refuge from that persecution and you declare yourself as such. and until you can demonstrate it - then you are classified as ILLEGAL if you arrive here without a VISA

No you're not... A person (who has declared him/herself a refugee from persecution) cannot be deemed an illegal immigrant until it is either proved by that he/she is not a refugee from persecution and/or that the person cannot demonstrate that they are.

Otherwise a declared refugee is presumed to be fleeing persecution.

adelcrow wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:49am:

Last time I looked it was Australia that invaded Afghanistan and Iraq which helped to create this wave of reffos..so yes, it is our problem because it is a problem of our own doing. Why do the neo cons want us to push our problems onto our neighbours who had nothing to do with both invasions?

And what are the Afghans going to do about it?

That's right - they'll enjoy liberty and freedom

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:50am:

The Greens are now sitting at about 12% so their population seems to have grown

Yet, politically, they are not the ones who appear to have a problem with boat people.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:50am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:44am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:36am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:27am: Point 2 I've never claimed boat arrivals are illegal. I've always said if you enter Australia without a VISA is illegal Unless (of course) you can demonstrate you are escaping persecution from your country of origin and you are seeking refuge from that persecution and you declare yourself as such. and until you can demonstrate it - then you are classified as ILLEGAL if you arrive here without a VISA No you're not... A person (who has declared him/herself a refugee from persecution) cannot be deemed an illegal immigrant until it is either proved by that he/she is not a refugee from persecution and/or that the person cannot demonstrate that they are. Otherwise a declared refugee is presumed to be fleeing persecution.

where did I say they are an "illegal IMMIGRANT"

I said they are here in Australia illegally and should be treated with all the benefits of an illegal until they verify their status as an immigrant, asylum seeker or whatever else they are claiming

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:51am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:50am: The Greens are now sitting at about 12% so their population seems to have grown Yet, politically, they are not the ones who appear to have a problem with boat people.

of course they do

how can they tell us what the UN Refugee convention say when they can't even read a lease agreement?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:46am:

I'd bet that the descendants of those 9.23% (either genetically or culturally) are the white trash who are afflicted with 'boat people' hysteria.

The 'Greens' are into racism in a big way.


Quote:

'Coconut' slurs as Woodside gas deal in the Kimberley riles greens KIMBERLEY Aborigines who support Woodside's $30 billion gas hub are being racially abused as "money-hungry coconuts" in an intensifying campaign involving hateful newsletters and graffiti attacks. And the Aboriginal leader who helped to secure a 30-year package of indigenous benefits in exchange for a gas hub on Western Australia's far north coast says green groups have betrayed the region's Aborigines. [...] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coconut-slurs-as-woodside-gas-deal-in-the-kimberley-riles-greens/story-fn59niix-1226142192914

I'm ashamed of the 'Greens'. They are nothing more than filth.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:51am:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:49am: Last time I looked it was Australia that invaded Afghanistan and Iraq which helped to create this wave of reffos..so yes, it is our problem because it is a problem of our own doing. Why do the neo cons want us to push our problems onto our neighbours who had nothing to do with both invasions? And what are the Afghans going to do about it? That's right - they'll enjoy liberty and freedom

I think you'll find the rise of terrorism, insurgency, persecution and the destabilisation of the 2 countries has done the opposite of what you claim Maqqa.
Im sure you also know that now both these countries are closer in diplomatic terms to the anti west regime in Iran than ever before.
These are the reasons people are fleeing Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:54am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:50am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:44am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:36am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:27am: Point 2 I've never claimed boat arrivals are illegal. I've always said if you enter Australia without a VISA is illegal Unless (of course) you can demonstrate you are escaping persecution from your country of origin and you are seeking refuge from that persecution and you declare yourself as such. and until you can demonstrate it - then you are classified as ILLEGAL if you arrive here without a VISA No you're not... A person (who has declared him/herself a refugee from persecution) cannot be deemed an illegal immigrant until it is either proved by that he/she is not a refugee from persecution and/or that the person cannot demonstrate that they are. Otherwise a declared refugee is presumed to be fleeing persecution. where did I say they are an "illegal IMMIGRANT" I said they are here in Australia illegally and should be treated with all the benefits of an illegal until they verify their status as an immigrant, asylum seeker or whatever else they are claiming

A person who arrives in Australia and declares himself/herself a refugee from persecution is NOT an illegal immigrant.

A person who arrives in Australia and declares himself/herself a refugee from persecution is presumed to be a refugee from persecution until it can be demonstrated that his/her claim is untrue or cannot be substantiated, only then can the person be deemed an illegal immigrant.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:57am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:54am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:50am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:44am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:36am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:27am: Point 2 I've never claimed boat arrivals are illegal. I've always said if you enter Australia without a VISA is illegal Unless (of course) you can demonstrate you are escaping persecution from your country of origin and you are seeking refuge from that persecution and you declare yourself as such. and until you can demonstrate it - then you are classified as ILLEGAL if you arrive here without a VISA No you're not... A person (who has declared him/herself a refugee from persecution) cannot be deemed an illegal immigrant until it is either proved by that he/she is not a refugee from persecution and/or that the person cannot demonstrate that they are. Otherwise a declared refugee is presumed to be fleeing persecution. where did I say they are an "illegal IMMIGRANT" I said they are here in Australia illegally and should be treated with all the benefits of an illegal until they verify their status as an immigrant, asylum seeker or whatever else they are claiming A person who arrives in Australia and declares himself/herself a refugee from persecution is NOT an illegal immigrant. A person who arrives in Australia and declares himself/herself a refugee from persecution is presumed to be a refugee from persecution until it can be demonstrated that his/her claim is untrue or cannot be substantiated, only then can the person be deemed an illegal immigrant.

Point 1
where did I say "illegal immigrant"

I've always asserted they are an illegal entrant


Point 2
Really? Australia must prove? So the illegals make a claim but Australia must prove?  :D :D :D

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:43am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:38am: 70% of asylum seekers resettled to Australia or other countries.....Stating that only 43% where settled in Australia ignores the fact that 70% where in fact found to be genuine refugees....You can twist the stats to suit yourself however the fact remains.....Most people arriving by boat are found to be genuine refugees....It was the deliberate quote of 43% by Macca that was being selective with the truth!!! I thought we are talking about Australia? And if the illegals are claiming asylum in Australia then they would want to stay in Australia!! The only reason why they wouldn't stay is because they were rejected so 43% is correct

I was talking about how many asylum seekers where granted refugee status.....I had no idea that unless you come to Australia you where not considered safe from persecution and counted as a genuine refugee!!!

::)

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:01am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:57am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:54am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:50am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:44am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:36am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:27am: Point 2 I've never claimed boat arrivals are illegal. I've always said if you enter Australia without a VISA is illegal Unless (of course) you can demonstrate you are escaping persecution from your country of origin and you are seeking refuge from that persecution and you declare yourself as such. and until you can demonstrate it - then you are classified as ILLEGAL if you arrive here without a VISA No you're not... A person (who has declared him/herself a refugee from persecution) cannot be deemed an illegal immigrant until it is either proved by that he/she is not a refugee from persecution and/or that the person cannot demonstrate that they are. Otherwise a declared refugee is presumed to be fleeing persecution. where did I say they are an "illegal IMMIGRANT" I said they are here in Australia illegally and should be treated with all the benefits of an illegal until they verify their status as an immigrant, asylum seeker or whatever else they are claiming A person who arrives in Australia and declares himself/herself a refugee from persecution is NOT an illegal immigrant. A person who arrives in Australia and declares himself/herself a refugee from persecution is presumed to be a refugee from persecution until it can be demonstrated that his/her claim is untrue or cannot be substantiated, only then can the person be deemed an illegal immigrant. Point 1 where did I say "illegal immigrant" I've always asserted they are an illegal entrant Point 2 Really? Australia must prove? So the illegals make a claim but Australia must prove?  :D :D :D

Don't just make it up.

A refugee is NOT an illegal immigrant / illegal 'entrant'/ an illegal anything until it can be proved that his/her claims of refugee status is untrue or that his/her claims cannot be substantiated.

Based on the 1967 Referendum...

The highest concentration of likely white trash 'boat people' psychos are (in order of '67 nay-saying)

Western Australia  19.05%
South Australia      13.74%
Queensland          10.79%
Tasmania                 9.79%
New South Wales   8.54%
Victoria                 5.32%

.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:08am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:01am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:57am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:54am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:50am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:44am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:36am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:27am: Point 2 I've never claimed boat arrivals are illegal. I've always said if you enter Australia without a VISA is illegal Unless (of course) you can demonstrate you are escaping persecution from your country of origin and you are seeking refuge from that persecution and you declare yourself as such. and until you can demonstrate it - then you are classified as ILLEGAL if you arrive here without a VISA No you're not... A person (who has declared him/herself a refugee from persecution) cannot be deemed an illegal immigrant until it is either proved by that he/she is not a refugee from persecution and/or that the person cannot demonstrate that they are. Otherwise a declared refugee is presumed to be fleeing persecution. where did I say they are an "illegal IMMIGRANT" I said they are here in Australia illegally and should be treated with all the benefits of an illegal until they verify their status as an immigrant, asylum seeker or whatever else they are claiming A person who arrives in Australia and declares himself/herself a refugee from persecution is NOT an illegal immigrant. A person who arrives in Australia and declares himself/herself a refugee from persecution is presumed to be a refugee from persecution until it can be demonstrated that his/her claim is untrue or cannot be substantiated, only then can the person be deemed an illegal immigrant. Point 1 where did I say "illegal immigrant" I've always asserted they are an illegal entrant Point 2 Really? Australia must prove? So the illegals make a claim but Australia must prove?  :D :D :D Don't just make it up. A refugee is NOT an illegal immigrant / illegal 'entrant'/ an illegal anything until it can be proved that his/her claims of refugee status is untrue or that his/her claims cannot be substantiated.

you claim I said they are illegal immigrants - where did I say that?

you made that up

i say they entered Australia illegally

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:12am:

Based on the 1967 Referendum... The highest concentration of likely white trash 'boat people' psychos are (in order of '67 nay-saying) Western Australia  19.05% South Australia      13.74% Queensland          10.79% Tasmania                 9.79% New South Wales   8.54% Victoria                 5.32%

:D :D

1967

I have lost track of what is an asylum seeker.

what is a refugee

and what is an immigrant..

I know the dictionary definition... its what really do we class it as that is getting me confused..

I havent see boat loads from the Middle East yet.. yet the mere fact there is now huge uprising means to me that there is a lot of dissatisfaction with their lot..and has been for many years..yet how many boats have we had from Syria or Libya or even Palestine.where they are being persecuted or bombed..and life is intollerable..

I dont know what its like to live under a dictator..one can only presume life isnt a lot of fun..

but who decides what a refugee is or an asylum seeker is.. or an unhappy migrant is.... do they live for years in hiding like they used to if you were a jew in Germany in the war years.. or even leading up to them??

I kind of feel its all got trivialised to be honest.

maybe I just like to see things as black and white i dont know..

but if someone is FLEEING... i dont see how they have all this money that helps them travel through one country after another..

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:12am:

i say they entered Australia illegally

What you say is not Australian law.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:13am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:12am: Based on the 1967 Referendum... The highest concentration of likely white trash 'boat people' psychos are (in order of '67 nay-saying) Western Australia  19.05% South Australia      13.74% Queensland          10.79% Tasmania                 9.79% New South Wales   8.54% Victoria                 5.32% :D :D 1967

Only about 1.5 generations ago. Ask your mother and father (if you know who you father is) what they voted for in the 67 Referendum (assuming they were Australians and eligible to vote at the time). Ask your grandparents...

Check their body language... They may now be too ashamed to admit the truth, but unconscious eye movements may assist you in detecting a lie. Ask them what part of Australia they lived in at the time (if you don't already know) and what socio-economic group they belonged (again, if you don't already know).

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:31am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:12am: i say they entered Australia illegally What you say is not Australian law.

;D ;D ;D

Those people at Customs are ghosts as well

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:50am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:31am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:12am: i say they entered Australia illegally What you say is not Australian law. ;D ;D ;D Those people at Customs are ghosts as well

You'd make a good mate of it_is_the_light.

Not much for research are you.

Do you believe in Aliens from outer space?
;D

Are you from country WA, Queensland or South Australia?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:57am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:54am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:50am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:44am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:36am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:27am: Point 2 I've never claimed boat arrivals are illegal. I've always said if you enter Australia without a VISA is illegal Unless (of course) you can demonstrate you are escaping persecution from your country of origin and you are seeking refuge from that persecution and you declare yourself as such. and until you can demonstrate it - then you are classified as ILLEGAL if you arrive here without a VISA No you're not... A person (who has declared him/herself a refugee from persecution) cannot be deemed an illegal immigrant until it is either proved by that he/she is not a refugee from persecution and/or that the person cannot demonstrate that they are. Otherwise a declared refugee is presumed to be fleeing persecution. where did I say they are an "illegal IMMIGRANT" I said they are here in Australia illegally and should be treated with all the benefits of an illegal until they verify their status as an immigrant, asylum seeker or whatever else they are claiming A person who arrives in Australia and declares himself/herself a refugee from persecution is NOT an illegal immigrant. A person who arrives in Australia and declares himself/herself a refugee from persecution is presumed to be a refugee from persecution until it can be demonstrated that his/her claim is untrue or cannot be substantiated, only then can the person be deemed an illegal immigrant.

Regarding the section I highlighted, it depends on how they get here. If they come via Indonesia on a boat and destroy their papers, they are entering Australia via illegal means. If they come by air and apply for refugee status while here on a visa, that is not illegal as they came via legal means.

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 11:29pm:

So what?  they are authorised arrivals.  They have gone through the immigration process and obtained a Visa. People arriving by unauthorised boats are illegal.  It's against the law.   That is the issue.   Border protection.

It is not illegal to arrive at a point of entry and claim refugee status - there is no difference.

Look like the biggest profit made bringing illegals to Australia could be  made by Qantas.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:56am:

Regarding the section I highlighted, it depends on how they get here. If they come via Indonesia on a boat and destroy their papers, they are entering Australia via illegal means. If they come by air and apply for refugee status while here on a visa, that is not illegal as they came via legal means.

It must be proved they destroyed their papers in order to deceive Australian authorities (or that there is reasonable suspicion that they did so) before they can be declared illegal.

A person is not illegal merely by setting foot on Australian territory where he/she declares himself/herself a refugee.

cods wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

I have lost track of what is an asylum seeker. what is a refugee and what is an immigrant.. I know the dictionary definition... its what really do we class it as that is getting me confused..

An immigrant is a name given to a group of people who travels to another country seeking to stay there permanently

the terms asylum and refugees refers to the reason why you would commence the travel

other reasons might be due to work, family reunion etc

under each reason there are criterias you must prove in order to qualify

if you can't prove your reason then you don't get in

Generally you would make an application to come to Australia - this is done by applying for a VISA at any of the Australian Embassies around the world

to apply for a VISA you must tell Australia

(a) who you are,
(b) the reason why you want to come to Australia - work economic, asylum, refugee
(c) if you are of sound health

a VISA is simply a piece of paper than says you are allowed to enter Australia because you've passed/proven the above criterias

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:07pm:

An immigrant is a name given to a group of people who travels to another country seeking to stay there permanently the terms asylum and refugees refers to the reason why you would commence the travel other reasons might be due to work, family reunion etc under each reason there are criterias you must prove in order to qualify if you can't prove your reason then you don't get in Generally you would make an application to come to Australia - this is done by applying for a VISA at any of the Australian Embassies around the world to apply for a VISA you must tell Australia (a) who you are, (b) the reason why you want to come to Australia - work economic, asylum, refugee (c) if you are of sound health a VISA is simply a piece of paper than says you are allowed to enter Australia because you've passed/proven the above criterias

Did you leave school at 15?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:09pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:07pm: An immigrant is a name given to a group of people who travels to another country seeking to stay there permanently the terms asylum and refugees refers to the reason why you would commence the travel other reasons might be due to work, family reunion etc under each reason there are criterias you must prove in order to qualify if you can't prove your reason then you don't get in Generally you would make an application to come to Australia - this is done by applying for a VISA at any of the Australian Embassies around the world to apply for a VISA you must tell Australia (a) who you are, (b) the reason why you want to come to Australia - work economic, asylum, refugee (c) if you are of sound health a VISA is simply a piece of paper than says you are allowed to enter Australia because you've passed/proven the above criterias Did you leave school at 15?

did you EVER attend anything remotely resembling school?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:09pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 12:07pm: An immigrant is a name given to a group of people who travels to another country seeking to stay there permanently the terms asylum and refugees refers to the reason why you would commence the travel other reasons might be due to work, family reunion etc under each reason there are criterias you must prove in order to qualify if you can't prove your reason then you don't get in Generally you would make an application to come to Australia - this is done by applying for a VISA at any of the Australian Embassies around the world to apply for a VISA you must tell Australia (a) who you are, (b) the reason why you want to come to Australia - work economic, asylum, refugee (c) if you are of sound health a VISA is simply a piece of paper than says you are allowed to enter Australia because you've passed/proven the above criterias Did you leave school at 15? did you EVER attend anything remotely resembling school?

Does the term "Generally" mean much to you?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:07pm:

cods wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:26am: I have lost track of what is an asylum seeker. what is a refugee and what is an immigrant.. I know the dictionary definition... its what really do we class it as that is getting me confused.. An immigrant is a name given to a group of people who travels to another country seeking to stay there permanently the terms asylum and refugees refers to the reason why you would commence the travel other reasons might be due to work, family reunion etc under each reason there are criterias you must prove in order to qualify if you can't prove your reason then you don't get in Generally you would make an application to come to Australia - this is done by applying for a VISA at any of the Australian Embassies around the world to apply for a VISA you must tell Australia (a) who you are, (b) the reason why you want to come to Australia - work economic, asylum, refugee (c) if you are of sound health a VISA is simply a piece of paper than says you are allowed to enter Australia because you've passed/proven the above criterias

I was more asking about on here to be honest...I think everyone knows what the real terms are.. but now it seems to mean anyone that lands here can make any old claim.. boy why would you bother going through all the rigmorole that you have to go through say in England to come here.. when all you need to do is hop on a plane.. say your coming for a holiday overstay and then say.. oh btw you cant send me back someone will kill me..maybe the wife you deserted..it all becomes our responsibility because we let them in in the first place.

cods wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:13pm:

I was more asking about on here to be honest...I think everyone knows what the real terms are.. but now it seems to mean anyone that lands here can make any old claim.. boy why would you bother going through all the rigmorole that you have to go through say in England to come here.. when all you need to do is hop on a plane.. say your coming for a holiday overstay and then say.. oh btw you cant send me back someone will kill me..maybe the wife you deserted..it all becomes our responsibility because we let them in in the first place.

It is highly unlikely that an overstaying Englishman would be able to substantiate claims of persecution within his homeland to qualify for refugee status. There would also be the problem that he overstayed in the first place and did not declare himself a refugee upon arrival.

These scum-bag ‘boat people’ come here simply because of Australia’s generous welfare, that why 80% of them are still on some for of welfare even after 5 years being here.

culldav wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:27pm:

These scum-bag ‘boat people’ come here simply because of Australia’s generous welfare, that why 80% of them are still on some for of welfare even after 5 years being here.

Ah... Smells like a rural Western Australian/ Queenslander / South Australian just walked in ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 12:05pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:56am: Regarding the section I highlighted, it depends on how they get here. If they come via Indonesia on a boat and destroy their papers, they are entering Australia via illegal means. If they come by air and apply for refugee status while here on a visa, that is not illegal as they came via legal means. It must be proved they destroyed their papers in order to deceive Australian authorities (or that there is reasonable suspicion that they did so) before they can be declared illegal. A person is not illegal merely by setting foot on Australian territory where he/she declares himself/herself a refugee.

WRONG - if you don't have the necessary papers (ie passport, visa, etc) then you're deemed to have entered or attempted to enter Australia illegally without the correct paperwork. Whether you wilfully destroyed those papers or the dog ate them does not matter.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 1:03pm:

WRONG - if you don't have the necessary papers (ie passport, visa, etc) then you're deemed to have entered or attempted to enter Australia illegally without the correct paperwork. Whether you wilfully destroyed those papers or the dog ate them does not matter.

WRONG. Refugees may not have the correct paperwork for legitimate reasons (i.e. they may have been confiscated by the refugee's country of origin from which he is escaping persecution)... A person who claims refugee status is not deemed illegal merely because he does not have the 'correct' paperwork, so long as he declares himself a refugee to authorities at the moment of his setting foot in Australia.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 1:09pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:03pm: WRONG - if you don't have the necessary papers (ie passport, visa, etc) then you're deemed to have entered or attempted to enter Australia illegally without the correct paperwork. Whether you wilfully destroyed those papers or the dog ate them does not matter. WRONG. Refugees may not have the correct paperwork for legitimate reasons (i.e. they may have been confiscated by the refugee's country of origin from which he is escaping persecution)... A person who claims refugee status is not deemed illegal merely because he does not have the 'correct' paperwork, so long as he declares himself a refugee to authorities at the moment of his setting foot in Australia.

Aussies dont like reffos seeking asylum?
Then dont invade other countries based on lies and political spin..its quite simple really  :D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 1:09pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:03pm: WRONG - if you don't have the necessary papers (ie passport, visa, etc) then you're deemed to have entered or attempted to enter Australia illegally without the correct paperwork. Whether you wilfully destroyed those papers or the dog ate them does not matter. WRONG. Refugees may not have the correct paperwork for legitimate reasons (i.e. they may have been confiscated by the refugee's country of origin from which he is escaping persecution)... A person who claims refugee status is not deemed illegal merely because he does not have the 'correct' paperwork, so long as he declares himself a refugee to authorities at the moment of his setting foot in Australia.

The claim is not deemed to be illegal - correct

But the entry is deemed illegal

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 3:36pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:09pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:03pm: WRONG - if you don't have the necessary papers (ie passport, visa, etc) then you're deemed to have entered or attempted to enter Australia illegally without the correct paperwork. Whether you wilfully destroyed those papers or the dog ate them does not matter. WRONG. Refugees may not have the correct paperwork for legitimate reasons (i.e. they may have been confiscated by the refugee's country of origin from which he is escaping persecution)... A person who claims refugee status is not deemed illegal merely because he does not have the 'correct' paperwork, so long as he declares himself a refugee to authorities at the moment of his setting foot in Australia. The claim is not deemed to be illegal - correct But the entry is deemed illegal

No it is not.

Entry into Australia is not illegal.

A person who claims refugee status immediately upon arriving in Australia (whether he flies first-class without papers or arrives floating on a boogie-board) with or without papers has not committed a crime and is not considered to be here illegally. Nor is his method of entry illegal. Nor is his status illegal.

THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT ARRIVING IN AUSTRALIA AS A REFUGEE FLEEING PERSECUTION.

No person, claiming refugee status is deemed to be an illegal anything upon arrival in Australia, so long as he, at the first available opportunity after having set foot on Australian soil declares his refugee status and cooperates in identifying himself. Why do you think the Howard Government excised thousands of islands from Australia's migration zone? BECAUSE ENTRY INTO AUSTRALIA BY REFUGEES, ARRIVING BY ANY MEANS, WITH OR WITHOUT PAPERS, IS NOT ILLEGAL.

Arrival in these excised islands merely gives the government the capacity to prevent refugees from claiming refugee status under the UN definition, this denying them all the options available to refugees fleeing persecution normally offered in a civilised democratic society, but it still does not make those refugees' status illegal.

Probably up to10% of the Australian population is white trash. Under the Australian system those near 10% must vote. The Howard Government's cynical approach was to capture the 10% white trash vote in a general election by pandering to their, white trash, most primary need (to inflict suffering on an underclass lower than themselves). Howard's servility to the white trash element is eclipsed in magnitude only by how far he will crawl to kiss the arse of a US President... The latter being the modus operandi of all Australian Heads of Government.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 4:15pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 3:36pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:09pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 1:03pm: WRONG - if you don't have the necessary papers (ie passport, visa, etc) then you're deemed to have entered or attempted to enter Australia illegally without the correct paperwork. Whether you wilfully destroyed those papers or the dog ate them does not matter. WRONG. Refugees may not have the correct paperwork for legitimate reasons (i.e. they may have been confiscated by the refugee's country of origin from which he is escaping persecution)... A person who claims refugee status is not deemed illegal merely because he does not have the 'correct' paperwork, so long as he declares himself a refugee to authorities at the moment of his setting foot in Australia. The claim is not deemed to be illegal - correct But the entry is deemed illegal No it is not. Entry into Australia is not illegal. A person who claims refugee status immediately upon arriving in Australia (whether he flies first-class without papers or arrives floating on a boogie-board) with or without papers has not committed a crime and is not considered to be here illegally. Nor is his method of entry illegal. Nor is his status illegal. THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT ARRIVING IN AUSTRALIA AS A REFUGEE FLEEING PERSECUTION. No person, claiming refugee status is deemed to be an illegal anything upon arrival in Australia, so long as he, at the first available opportunity after having set foot on Australian soil declares his refugee status and cooperates in identifying himself. Why do you think the Howard Government excised thousands of islands from Australia's migration zone? BECAUSE ENTRY INTO AUSTRALIA BY REFUGEES, ARRIVING BY ANY MEANS, WITH OR WITHOUT PAPERS, IS NOT ILLEGAL. Arrival in these excised islands merely gives the government the capacity to prevent refugees from claiming refugee status under the UN definition, this denying them all the options available to refugees fleeing persecution normally offered in a civilised democratic society, but it still does not make those refugees' status illegal. Probably up to10% of the Australian population is white trash. Under the Australian system those near 10% must vote. The Howard Government's cynical approach was to capture the 10% white trash vote in a general election by pandering to their, white trash, most primary need (to inflict suffering on an underclass lower than themselves). Howard's servility to the white trash element is eclipsed in magnitude only by how far he will crawl to kiss the arse of a US President... The latter being the modus operandi of all Australian Heads of Government.

The you go and read the Immigration Act again

http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 4:38pm:

The you go and read the Immigration Act again

Please quote from the act where a refugee fleeing persecution is an illegal alien (or entrant as you prefer).

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 4:42pm:

http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/

So you cannot quote from the act where a refugee fleeing persecution is an 'illegal' then?

Not surprising you can't, because under Australian law they are not 'illegals'.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 4:42pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:38pm: The you go and read the Immigration Act again Please quote from the act where a refugee fleeing persecution is an illegal alien (or entrant as you prefer).

Where did I say that a "genuine refugee" fleeing persecution is an illegal alien?

You made that up

I have always said that anyone entering Australia without a VISA is illegal

Take for example

If the person enters Australia on Monday without a VISA then they are deemed illegal on Monday

By Thursday if their claims are assessed and verified then the original charge of illegal entry is withdrawn as at the date of entry

If the verification cannot be verified then they will continued to be classified as illegal until such time they are verified

If you are using the word "refugee" it refers that they are already been verified

So by definition a refugee cannot be an illegal alien

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 4:47pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:42pm: http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/ So you cannot quote from the act where a refugee fleeing persecution is an 'illegal' then? Not surprising you can't, because under Australian law they are not 'illegals'.

Of course not because it's in the UN Convention

Your wording are all wrong therefore your argument are all wrong

Understand the point you are making and the sequence before you argue about it

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 4:50pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:42pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 4:38pm: The you go and read the Immigration Act again Please quote from the act where a refugee fleeing persecution is an illegal alien (or entrant as you prefer). If the person enters Australia on Monday without a VISA then they are deemed illegal on Monday

No they are not.


Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 4:50pm:

If the verification cannot be verified then they will continued to be classified as illegal until such time they are verified

No they will not, because their situation in Australia is not illegal.


Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 4:50pm:

If you are using the word "refugee" it refers that they are already been verified So by definition a refugee cannot be an illegal alien

The claim of refugee status is made first by the claimant, not by Australian authorities, so the refugee's claim in the first instance has not been verified. They are not illegal immigrants until their claim of refugee status is proved false.

I'll let you have that one again helian

I am only mucking with you helian

But my points refer to Immigration Act Section 14

Then you might want to look at Section 4

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/


This should shut helian up for awhile

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 5:07pm:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ This should shut helian up for awhile

A refugee fleeing persecution claiming refugee status in Australia is not an unlawful non-citizen.


Quote:

An asylum seeker is an individual who is seeking international protection. In countries with individualised procedures, an asylum seeker is someone whose claim has not yet been finally decided on by the country in which he or she submitted the claim. Not every asylum seeker will ultimately be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker (United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Master Glossary of Terms, June 2006). In the Australian context, this means that an asylum seeker is a Protection visa (PV) applicant until his or her application has been finally determined by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship ('the department') or the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT).

Keep going helian - you are doing so well

Section 36

(2)  A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

                    (a)  a non-citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol;


The refugee Convention refers to the UN Convention

Note that it's called a "refugee" convention

Have they been determined as a refugee?

Quote:

The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers.

Quote:

There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:31am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:12am: i say they entered Australia illegally What you say is not Australian law.

It actually is Federal law. If you enter or attempt to enter this country without a passport and/or visa you are deemed to have illegally entered this country.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 5:33pm:

Quote: The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers.

Its inclusive for both have overstay and those without a VISA to start of with

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 6:16pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:31am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:12am: i say they entered Australia illegally What you say is not Australian law. It actually is Federal law. If you enter or attempt to enter this country without a passport and/or visa you are deemed to have illegally entered this country.

No it is not. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 6:24pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:31am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:12am: i say they entered Australia illegally What you say is not Australian law. It actually is Federal law. If you enter or attempt to enter this country without a passport and/or visa you are deemed to have illegally entered this country. No it is not. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.

Is that why we detain people

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:24pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:31am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:12am: i say they entered Australia illegally What you say is not Australian law. It actually is Federal law. If you enter or attempt to enter this country without a passport and/or visa you are deemed to have illegally entered this country. No it is not. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa. Is that why we detain people

We detain people to determine whether they have a right or valid claim to remain resident in the country after arrival.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 6:18pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 5:33pm: Quote: The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers. Its inclusive for both have overstay and those without a VISA to start of with

Don't you SEE the difference? If somebody arrives without a visa openly declaring they don't have one, but asking for permission to stay as they are persecuted in their own country, that is not dishonest. Their case should be judged to be a good one or a poor one and then refused or permitted. But asking is not a crime under Australian, (or International) law.

Grey wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 6:37pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:18pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 5:33pm: Quote: The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers. Its inclusive for both have overstay and those without a VISA to start of with Don't you SEE the difference? If somebody arrives without a visa openly declaring they don't have one, but asking for permission to stay as they are persecuted in their own country, that is not dishonest. Their case should be judged to be a good one or a poor one and then refused or permitted. But asking is not a crime under Australian, (or International) law.

It means Australia has the right to remove them under Section 4.4

I seem to be referencing the Act directly and lefties are referencing "Because I think so..."

Please feel free to start referencing the Act anytime now

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 6:37pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:33pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:24pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:31am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:12am: i say they entered Australia illegally What you say is not Australian law. It actually is Federal law. If you enter or attempt to enter this country without a passport and/or visa you are deemed to have illegally entered this country. No it is not. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa. Is that why we detain people We detain people to determine whether they have a right or valid claim to remain resident in the country after arrival.

So we've moved onto the topic of "residency"  now?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 6:45pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:37pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:33pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:24pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:16pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:31am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:12am: i say they entered Australia illegally What you say is not Australian law. It actually is Federal law. If you enter or attempt to enter this country without a passport and/or visa you are deemed to have illegally entered this country. No it is not. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa. Is that why we detain people We detain people to determine whether they have a right or valid claim to remain resident in the country after arrival. So we've moved onto the topic of "residency"  now?

No, we haven't moved onto anything further than we were from the start... You're just not very bright... People don't arrive in Australia as refugees fleeing persecution except for the reason of remaining in the country (why else would they try to arrive here?) or (for those with an IQ over 100) remain resident in the country.

you've demonstrated over and over again that you use the wrong wordings

learning the wordings before you attempt this again

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 7:54pm:

you've demonstrated over and over again that you use the wrong wordings learning the wordings before you attempt this again

;D

Crosswords are a good start to improving language comprehension. Try it... It may help.

But, I've gotta say I like your statement "using the wrong wordings".  Sort of country-hokey ;D

Grey wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 6:37pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:18pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 5:33pm: Quote: The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers. Its inclusive for both have overstay and those without a VISA to start of with Don't you SEE the difference? If somebody arrives without a visa openly declaring they don't have one, but asking for permission to stay as they are persecuted in their own country, that is not dishonest. Their case should be judged to be a good one or a poor one and then refused or permitted. But asking is not a crime under Australian, (or International) law.

The problem with this argument is that in order to get an airline ticket to Australia and to pass through customs at the point of departure requires evidence of permission to enter Australia. Without it, you can't even get on the plane to come here!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 8:40pm:

Grey wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:37pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:18pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 5:33pm: Quote: The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers. Its inclusive for both have overstay and those without a VISA to start of with Don't you SEE the difference? If somebody arrives without a visa openly declaring they don't have one, but asking for permission to stay as they are persecuted in their own country, that is not dishonest. Their case should be judged to be a good one or a poor one and then refused or permitted. But asking is not a crime under Australian, (or International) law. The problem with this argument is that in order to get an airline ticket to Australia and to pass through customs at the point of departure requires evidence of permission to enter Australia. Without it, you can't even get on the plane to come here!

That's true.

Hence the need for those who've had their papers confiscated or dare not risk applying for a passport, to arrive here by other means.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 8:44pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 8:40pm: Grey wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:37pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:18pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 5:33pm: Quote: The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers. Its inclusive for both have overstay and those without a VISA to start of with Don't you SEE the difference? If somebody arrives without a visa openly declaring they don't have one, but asking for permission to stay as they are persecuted in their own country, that is not dishonest. Their case should be judged to be a good one or a poor one and then refused or permitted. But asking is not a crime under Australian, (or International) law. The problem with this argument is that in order to get an airline ticket to Australia and to pass through customs at the point of departure requires evidence of permission to enter Australia. Without it, you can't even get on the plane to come here! That's true. Hence the need for those who've had their papers confiscated or dare not risk applying for a passport, to arrive here by other means.

Which means that those who arrive by boat with no papers are illegal immigrants while those who arrive by air have come legally and are allowed to remain here while their application is considered (or until their visa expires - whichever occurs first). It's only yhe boat people who are detained.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 8:47pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 8:44pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 8:40pm: Grey wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:37pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 6:18pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 5:33pm: Quote: The term ‘illegal’ may more appropriately apply to those without a valid visa (‘unlawful non-citizens’) who are not seeking protection, such as visa overstayers. Its inclusive for both have overstay and those without a VISA to start of with Don't you SEE the difference? If somebody arrives without a visa openly declaring they don't have one, but asking for permission to stay as they are persecuted in their own country, that is not dishonest. Their case should be judged to be a good one or a poor one and then refused or permitted. But asking is not a crime under Australian, (or International) law. The problem with this argument is that in order to get an airline ticket to Australia and to pass through customs at the point of departure requires evidence of permission to enter Australia. Without it, you can't even get on the plane to come here! That's true. Hence the need for those who've had their papers confiscated or dare not risk applying for a passport, to arrive here by other means. Which means that those who arrive by boat with no papers are illegal immigrants.

No they're not. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.

Wow, you really are daft. It is illegal to enter or attempt to enter Australia without proper documentation such as a passport and visa (when one is required). It is a basic part of the Immigration Act. You cannot board a plane to come here without a passport/visa but you can come by boat without papers and in those circumstances, you are deemed (and rightly so) to have entered Australia ILLEGALLY. Get that into your thick skull, okay?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 8:53pm:

Wow, you really are daft. It is illegal to enter or attempt to enter Australia without proper documentation such as a passport and visa (when one is required). It is a basic part of the Immigration Act. You cannot board a plane to come here without a passport/visa but you can come by boat without papers and in those circumstances, you are deemed (and rightly so) to have entered Australia ILLEGALLY. Get that into your thick skull, okay?

Please try to understand Australian law...

There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 8:55pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 8:53pm: Wow, you really are daft. It is illegal to enter or attempt to enter Australia without proper documentation such as a passport and visa (when one is required). It is a basic part of the Immigration Act. You cannot board a plane to come here without a passport/visa but you can come by boat without papers and in those circumstances, you are deemed (and rightly so) to have entered Australia ILLEGALLY. Get that into your thick skull, okay? Please try to understand Australian law... There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.

I've already addressed this issue

It's called deportation

Section 4.4

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:01pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 8:55pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 8:53pm: Wow, you really are daft. It is illegal to enter or attempt to enter Australia without proper documentation such as a passport and visa (when one is required). It is a basic part of the Immigration Act. You cannot board a plane to come here without a passport/visa but you can come by boat without papers and in those circumstances, you are deemed (and rightly so) to have entered Australia ILLEGALLY. Get that into your thick skull, okay? Please try to understand Australian law... There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa. I've already addressed this issue It's called deportation Section 4.4

I now ask you to define section 4.4... In its context.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:01pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 8:55pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 8:53pm: Wow, you really are daft. It is illegal to enter or attempt to enter Australia without proper documentation such as a passport and visa (when one is required). It is a basic part of the Immigration Act. You cannot board a plane to come here without a passport/visa but you can come by boat without papers and in those circumstances, you are deemed (and rightly so) to have entered Australia ILLEGALLY. Get that into your thick skull, okay? Please try to understand Australian law... There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa. I've already addressed this issue It's called deportation Section 4.4 I now ask you to define section 4.4... In its context.

;D ;D

It says as it reads

Waiting with baited breath.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:06pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:03pm: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:01pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 8:55pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 8:53pm: Wow, you really are daft. It is illegal to enter or attempt to enter Australia without proper documentation such as a passport and visa (when one is required). It is a basic part of the Immigration Act. You cannot board a plane to come here without a passport/visa but you can come by boat without papers and in those circumstances, you are deemed (and rightly so) to have entered Australia ILLEGALLY. Get that into your thick skull, okay? Please try to understand Australian law... There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa. I've already addressed this issue It's called deportation Section 4.4 I now ask you to define section 4.4... In its context. ;D ;D It says as it reads

So, no context, country boy?

I've proved your reply 76 as wrong

I've proved your reply 83 as wrong

And you continue to make more statements attempting to elicit others to prove you wrong

Try making a correct statement

I've already given you reference to the Immigration Act

Where are the references backing your statements and claims?

You haven't got any

NEXT!!

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:10pm:

I've proved your reply 76 as wrong I've proved your reply 83 as wrong And you continue to make more statements attempting to elicit others to prove you wrong Try making a correct statement I've already given you reference to the Immigration Act Where are the references backing your statements and claims? You haven't got any NEXT!!

Not much into law eh, country boy ;D

neither are you

I've shown you references

you've got nothing

Immigration laws as they relate to air travel...

Checking in abroad:
Australia has a universal visa system. This means that all people travelling to Australia (except Australian citizens) require a valid visa or authority to enter Australia. This ensures that the department is able to facilitate the entry of people on arrival.

When you arrive at the check-in counter overseas, you will need to present your travel documents to airline staff. Airline staff will then check your details against immigration data systems to ensure that you have a valid visa or authority to enter Australia.

If you do not hold the correct documentation or visa/authority to enter Australia, the airline may refuse to allow you to board the aeroplane.

Your travel documents may also be checked prior to boarding the plane as an additional border security measure.

Arriving in Australia:
Everyone who arrives at an Australian airport must present their travel documents and Incoming Passenger Card (IPC) to officers in immigration clearance.

Travellers who are not Australian citizens also need to obtain a valid visa or authority to enter Australia. This must be obtained before travelling to Australia. Special provisions apply to most New Zealand citizens, and to people eligible to transit Australia without a visa.

Anyone who arrives without a valid travel document, visa or authority to enter Australia, may be delayed until their identity and claims to enter Australia are checked. If a person does not meet immigration clearance requirements, they may be refused entry to Australia.

See highlighted sections above. In other words, entry into Australia without valid documentation (i.e. passport and visa) is deemed illegal and results in deportation.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:12pm:

neither are you I've shown you references you've got nothing

Sorry there country boy, you're wrong... Back to the fields there fella...

BTW did you check out what side mum, dad, gran and pop were on in 67?

aaarrr eeeerrr well ya see..aaarrr eeererr..No mention of 'refugees' there.

Nope.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:17pm:

Immigration laws as they relate to air travel... Checking in abroad: Australia has a universal visa system. This means that all people travelling to Australia (except Australian citizens) require a valid visa or authority to enter Australia. This ensures that the department is able to facilitate the entry of people on arrival. When you arrive at the check-in counter overseas, you will need to present your travel documents to airline staff. Airline staff will then check your details against immigration data systems to ensure that you have a valid visa or authority to enter Australia. If you do not hold the correct documentation or visa/authority to enter Australia, the airline may refuse to allow you to board the aeroplane. Your travel documents may also be checked prior to boarding the plane as an additional border security measure. Arriving in Australia: Everyone who arrives at an Australian airport must present their travel documents and Incoming Passenger Card (IPC) to officers in immigration clearance. Travellers who are not Australian citizens also need to obtain a valid visa or authority to enter Australia. This must be obtained before travelling to Australia. Special provisions apply to most New Zealand citizens, and to people eligible to transit Australia without a visa. Anyone who arrives without a valid travel document, visa or authority to enter Australia, may be delayed until their identity and claims to enter Australia are checked. If a person does not meet immigration clearance requirements, they may be refused entry to Australia. See highlighted sections above. In other words, entry into Australia without valid documentation (i.e. passport and visa) is deemed illegal and results in deportation.

Sure, if they can control the entry points (and given that to board a plane in another country also requires identification) but what if you can't control the access point?

Cos that's the problem, see... There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.

And you cannot refuse entry to a refugee fleeing persecution.

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:20pm:

aaarrr eeeerrr well ya see..aaarrr eeererr..No mention of 'refugees' there. Nope.

The poor man doesn't understand the context.

But there's no cure for stupidity...

Although that too is not illegal.

where's your reference helian

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:27pm:

where's your reference helian

Sorry country boy, but you quoted section 4.4... You must now define the context in terms of refugees fleeing persecution.

still no reference helian

I don't think a clapping seal would comprehend very much at all helian.

Except "spin"

A spinning seal?..That's quite novel.

:D

where's your legislative reference helian?

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:46pm:

I don't think a clapping seal would comprehend very much at all helian. Except "spin" A spinning seal?..That's quite novel. :D

That's the spin in which politicians are well versed... tossing around terms like 'illegals' to gin up the 10% white trash in aid of translating their primary need (being, inflicting suffering on an underclass lower than theirs) into votes.

still no reference from helian

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:58pm:

still no reference from helian

Reference to what, country boy? Section 4.4. and its application to refugees fleeing persecution, is what I'm waiting for... It takes more than quoting the act, country boy.

i wonder how many have downed due to the alps ineptness?

I've provided legislative reference for my claims

helian has provided NO references for his claims

back in your hole helian

Your tennis match got boring - I doubt anyone knows what either of you said.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:05pm:

I've provided legislative reference for my claims helian has provided NO references for his claims back in your hole helian

Here's something to start you on your journey of discovery...
 
http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2833


Quote:

Now to the High Court appeal which became Behrooz, Al Kateb and Al Khafaji and have a look at the meaning of “unlawful”:    GUMMOW J: What is the baggage of the word “unlawful”?    MR BENNETT: Your Honour, none. It is a word used in a definition provision, it is simply a defined phrase. It is not a phrase which necessarily involves the commission of a criminal offence. And another exchange between Gummow J. and Mr Bennett:    GUMMOW J: What is the force of the word “unlawful”?    MR BENNETT: It is merely a word which is used in a definition section, your Honour.    GLEESON CJ: Does it mean without lawful permission?    MR BENNETT: Yes, that is perhaps the best way of paraphrasing - - -    GUMMOW J: But in the Austinian sense that is meaningless, is it not?    MR BENNETT: Yes, your Honour. The draftsperson of the Act is not necessarily taken to be familiar with the - - -    GUMMOW J: Well, perhaps they ought to be.

heck lets compare the references

helian provides a web-blog from a Marilyn Shepherd - some feedback from another blogger about Marilyn
http://theblankpagesoftheage.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-of-marilyn.html

Marilyn always seems to stand out: not only because she's an Aussie but because of the systemic and pervasive racism that drips largely from her acidic computer keyboard. I can imagine her skulking in some cellar, tapping gleefully away inventing another imaginary crime perpetrated by those nasty Jews against those poor Palestinians.


and I provided legislative reference

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:53pm:

Your tennis match got boring - I doubt anyone knows what either of you said.

simple dna

I provided the actual law to back my assertions

helian provided "because I think so" as its reference

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:53pm:

Your tennis match got boring - I doubt anyone knows what either of you said.

The point I am making is that arrivals in Australia seeking refuge from persecution are not 'illegals' of any kind.

The term (illegals) is used to refer to refugees by the probable 10% white trash in Australian society (likely the progeny or cultural inheritors of the near 10% nay-sayers of the 67 Referendum) who (like all poorly educated and/or culturally, morally and ethically bankrupt minorities) have in common a primary goal - to inflict suffering on a people they consider (or want established as) an underclass lower than their own.

The white trash underclass are generally visible and audible when issues (like that of refugees fleeing persecution) are topical... and, of course, Australia Day (or Abuse-an-Immigrant Day).

They are commonly seen on occasions when they rally (and on Abuse-an-Immigrant Day) wearing the Australian flag as a batman cape and have donned T-shirts sporting slogans such as "bugger Off We're Full".

Their cause (to inflict suffering on an underclass) has been and is being co-opted by cynical politicians who see a near 10% voter potential and have put aside their own sense of ethics and morality in favour of their party's fortunes... Not unheard of among politicians, some of whom would "slit their own grandmother's throat" (metaphorically speaking) for a chance at holding onto their seat and thereby playing their part in bringing their party to government.

still no legislative proof from helian

I offered the Immigration Act as my proof

helian offered an opinion from an internet blogger as proof

Maqqa wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 7:19am:

still no legislative proof from helian I offered the Immigration Act as my proof helian offered an opinion from an internet blogger as proof

I offered you passages of a transcript from Federal High Court cases... That's the part of our Westminster system tasked with interpreting law, y'know.

"Legislative proof" ;D

Parliament could legislate that "murder is legal" but it's unlikely that the Federal High Court would uphold Parliament's right to enact that legislation as Constitutional or in keeping with Australia's international obligations.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 7:24am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 7:19am: still no legislative proof from helian I offered the Immigration Act as my proof helian offered an opinion from an internet blogger as proof I offered you passages of a transcript from Federal High Court cases... That's the part of our Westminster system tasked with interpreting law, y'know. "Legislative proof" ;D Parliament could legislate that "murder is legal" but it's unlikely that the Federal High Court would uphold Parliament's right to enact that legislation as Constitutional or in keeping with Australia's international obligations.

High court transcripts are not "law". They may, from time to time, quote laws but that is a different thing altogether. Your argument is as flimsy as wet paper.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 7:48am:

High court transcripts are not "law". They may, from time to time, quote laws but that is a different thing altogether. Your argument is as flimsy as wet paper.

The High Court interprets law, you fool... If the legislation is unenforcible or legal gibberish, it's the High Court that strikes it down where it cannot be sustained legally, or is unconstitutional and puts Parliament on notice where its enforcement would result in precedents that jeopardise/breach Constitutional constraints or international obligations.

Parliament does not have the right to pass legislation that breaches Constitutional constraints or international obligations unless it establishes a referendum to alter the Constitution in its favour or formally withdraws from its previously accepted international obligations.

Also... if you've ever met drafters of legislation you'll realise that not all of them are the full quid (legally speaking) and in some cases do not even have a law degree. But, I guess you'd have to get out of your armchair to do that.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 8:02am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 7:48am: High court transcripts are not "law". They may, from time to time, quote laws but that is a different thing altogether. Your argument is as flimsy as wet paper. The High Court interprets law, you fool... If the legislation is unenforcible or legal gibberish, it's the High Court that strikes it down where it cannot be sustained legally, or is unconstitutional and puts Parliament on notice where its enforcement would result in precedents that jeopardise/breach Constitutional constraints or international obligations. Parliament does not have the right to pass legislation that breaches Constitutional constraints or international obligations unless it establishes a referendum to alter the Constitution in its favour or formally withdraws from its previously accepted international obligations. Also... if you've ever met drafters of legislation you'll realise that not all of them are the full quid (legally speaking) and in some cases do not even have a law degree. But, I guess you'd have to get out of your armchair to do that.

Your paper is very flimsy indeed...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 8:06am:

Your paper is very flimsy indeed...

Now I'm sure you're stupid ;D

I like this bit the best "They may, from time to time, quote laws" ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 8:08am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 8:06am: Your paper is very flimsy indeed... Now I'm sure you're stupid ;D I like this bit the best "They may, from time to time, quote laws" ;D

Ever sat through a sitting of the High Court? I have, numerous times. They do not always quote laws. More often than not they quote precedents in past cases.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 8:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 8:06am: Your paper is very flimsy indeed... Now I'm sure you're stupid ;D I like this bit the best "They may, from time to time, quote laws" ;D Ever sat through a sitting of the High Court? I have, numerous times. They do not always quote laws. More often than not they quote precedents in past cases.

Precedents based on what? You twat. ;D

Do you even know what precedents are?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 7:19am:

still no legislative proof from helian I offered the Immigration Act as my proof helian offered an opinion from an internet blogger as proof

helian loses, again

Wow, reading 10 pages of Maqqa pretending to understand the Migrant Act  is hilarious.

Yes, arriving by boat without prior approval is unauthorised entry.  However, the moment these people claim asylum, they are no longer ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.  Maqqa, get your terminology correct. Otherwise bugger off.

Illegal Immigrants are those who are in Australia illegally without a valid reason. It has nothing to do with how they have arrived.

The fact that we have no problem with people who arrive by plane, and yet we continually denigrate people who arrive by boat just goes to show how badly politicised this debate is, and how completely retarded the partisan stooges really are. It's exactly the same. Regardless of how much Maqqa wants to twist it.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24^th, 2011 at 11:56pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:29pm: So what?  they are authorised arrivals.   They have gone through the immigration process and obtained a Visa. People arriving by unauthorised boats are illegal.  It's against the law.   That is the issue.   Border protection.  ::) NO They HAVEN'T They "sneak in the back door" via TOURIST VISAS - and THEN apply for asylum i Quote: Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said it was virtually impossible for genuine asylum seekers to come by plane because of strict vetting of visa applicants by immigration authorities. Ms Millbank said most people who arrived by air and then made refugee claims were manipulating the system to extend their stay in Australia. "You can certainly say that these people are untruthful because they have to declare when they get a visa that they're not intending to apply for asylum," she said. "They are no more deserving than the people who pay for people smugglers because in one case they are manipulating the system and in the other case they are trying to break in illegally" ... with a LOT more cash

They still arrive with their paperwork intact buzz, and they arrive via lawful means.
Using foreign criminal smuggling gangs to gain access to another country is not lawful.
The courts lock these boats crew up, they don't lock airline pilots up.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 10:58am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:56pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:29pm: So what?  they are authorised arrivals.   They have gone through the immigration process and obtained a Visa. People arriving by unauthorised boats are illegal.  It's against the law.   That is the issue.   Border protection.  ::) NO They HAVEN'T They "sneak in the back door" via TOURIST VISAS - and THEN apply for asylum i Quote: Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said it was virtually impossible for genuine asylum seekers to come by plane because of strict vetting of visa applicants by immigration authorities. Ms Millbank said most people who arrived by air and then made refugee claims were manipulating the system to extend their stay in Australia. "You can certainly say that these people are untruthful because they have to declare when they get a visa that they're not intending to apply for asylum," she said. "They are no more deserving than the people who pay for people smugglers because in one case they are manipulating the system and in the other case they are trying to break in illegally" ... with a LOT more cash They still arrive with their paperwork intact buzz, and they arrive via lawful means. Using foreign criminal smuggling gangs to gain access to another country is not lawful. The courts lock these boats crew up, they don't lock airline pilots up.

So if these people had papers you would have no problem accepting their claims.....What happens to the people who cannot get papers or a visa???

::)

The Liberal party will 'humanely' cough, tow their leaky boats back to sea, to any dumping ground they can find.

They are such bleeding hearts ya know..suddenly.

My god Julia has to put up with incredible stupidity and hypocrisy from Abbot and his mob of wreckers..That man..I say this in all honesty and conviction..that man is a psychopath! He is..there's no other word to describe him. This is why he has SO many people fooled..My sister went out with a controlling psychopath for 5 years..poor darling..psychopathic control is incredibly powerful  and I believe tony Abbott has that control over vulnerable and gullible Australians..with the help of his billionaire mates in media, mining, oil, tobacco and gambling..of course, it goes without saying.  

cods wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:27am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:56pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:29pm: So what?  they are authorised arrivals.   They have gone through the immigration process and obtained a Visa. People arriving by unauthorised boats are illegal.  It's against the law.   That is the issue.   Border protection.  ::) NO They HAVEN'T They "sneak in the back door" via TOURIST VISAS - and THEN apply for asylum i Quote: Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said it was virtually impossible for genuine asylum seekers to come by plane because of strict vetting of visa applicants by immigration authorities. Ms Millbank said most people who arrived by air and then made refugee claims were manipulating the system to extend their stay in Australia. "You can certainly say that these people are untruthful because they have to declare when they get a visa that they're not intending to apply for asylum," she said. "They are no more deserving than the people who pay for people smugglers because in one case they are manipulating the system and in the other case they are trying to break in illegally" ... with a LOT more cash SO SOMETHING NEED TO BE DONE REGARDING OUR VISITING VISA SYSTEM... DOESNT IT.. THE FACT IS THEY DIDNT PAY A CRIMINAL TO GET IN TO THIS COUNTRY. WHY IS IT THE MAJOR POINTS ON THIS PROBLEM SEEM TO ESCAPE THE HARDLEFT.. IF ITS SO BLOODY EASY TO GET A VISITOR VISA.. WHY DO THEY COME BY DANGEROUS BOAT??????????????????????????????????? it would have to be cheaper to come by plane anyway...WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU????????

It tells you that the POOREST and most GENUINE of refugees don't have passports or friends in high places to arrange visas

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 8:08am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 8:06am: Your paper is very flimsy indeed... Now I'm sure you're stupid ;D I like this bit the best "They may, from time to time, quote laws" ;D Ever sat through a sitting of the High Court? I have, numerous times.

And a few through the MAGISTRATE'S COURT, I'd imagine
Do you use legal aid - or is the concept too socialist for you ?  

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 11:02am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 10:58am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:56pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:29pm: So what?  they are authorised arrivals.   They have gone through the immigration process and obtained a Visa. People arriving by unauthorised boats are illegal.  It's against the law.   That is the issue.   Border protection.  ::) NO They HAVEN'T They "sneak in the back door" via TOURIST VISAS - and THEN apply for asylum i Quote: Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said it was virtually impossible for genuine asylum seekers to come by plane because of strict vetting of visa applicants by immigration authorities. Ms Millbank said most people who arrived by air and then made refugee claims were manipulating the system to extend their stay in Australia. "You can certainly say that these people are untruthful because they have to declare when they get a visa that they're not intending to apply for asylum," she said. "They are no more deserving than the people who pay for people smugglers because in one case they are manipulating the system and in the other case they are trying to break in illegally" ... with a LOT more cash They still arrive with their paperwork intact buzz, and they arrive via lawful means. Using foreign criminal smuggling gangs to gain access to another country is not lawful. The courts lock these boats crew up, they don't lock airline pilots up. So if these people had papers you would have no problem accepting their claims.....What happens to the people who cannot get papers or a visa??? ::)

Many of these people from Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc have already flown to Indonesia.
Perhaps they should not have disposed of them?

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:23am:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:13am: cods wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:51am: yes I know that macca and so does he... yet they keep pretending they are no different.. desperate thats all I can put it down too..or maybe wishful thinking that it will get gillard off the hook she has placed round her silly neck. I dont know what our system is.. when they come in by plane and ask for asylum are they locked up or let into the country to wander at will?? dunno how it works..I have watched border control in England and they very rarely get asylum coming in by air..they get sent back.. must cost a bloody lot as well. The process is this (1) They have paperwork ie they have an approved VISA to enter Australia for a period of 3 months anyway (2) Their application for asylum is assessed. No medical assessment is needed because it's all done when they did their VISA (3) If the processing takes more than 3 months ie their VISA have now expired - they are TECHNICALLY in Australia illegally so they are detained onshore in say Villawood - but most are given refugee status because they have paperwork Much easier to process if they have paperwork buzz and the rest are trying to tell you that the context of being ILLEGAL via overstaying a VISA is the same as entering Australia WITHOUT a VISA They are saying illegal is illegal and should be treated the same I wonder if they are happy to apply the same "illegal is illegal" argument to other areas of the law? take for example killing someone is ILLEGAL - but what is the treatment for someone who kills out of self defense compared to someone who premeditate their killing illegal is illegal  :-? Neither are illegal......how you arrive in a country has nothing to do with seeking asylum.....Claiming boat arrivals are illegal is a false argument that has no bearing in fact or the law.....The law is the law.....You have no idea do you??? :)

what a spurious argument you make! the outcome does not define the legality of the method. arriving by boat without permission is intrinsically illegal. no other definition is possible.

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 11:20am:

cods wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:27am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:56pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:29pm: So what?  they are authorised arrivals.   They have gone through the immigration process and obtained a Visa. People arriving by unauthorised boats are illegal.  It's against the law.   That is the issue.   Border protection.  ::) NO They HAVEN'T They "sneak in the back door" via TOURIST VISAS - and THEN apply for asylum i Quote: Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said it was virtually impossible for genuine asylum seekers to come by plane because of strict vetting of visa applicants by immigration authorities. Ms Millbank said most people who arrived by air and then made refugee claims were manipulating the system to extend their stay in Australia. "You can certainly say that these people are untruthful because they have to declare when they get a visa that they're not intending to apply for asylum," she said. "They are no more deserving than the people who pay for people smugglers because in one case they are manipulating the system and in the other case they are trying to break in illegally" ... with a LOT more cash SO SOMETHING NEED TO BE DONE REGARDING OUR VISITING VISA SYSTEM... DOESNT IT.. THE FACT IS THEY DIDNT PAY A CRIMINAL TO GET IN TO THIS COUNTRY. WHY IS IT THE MAJOR POINTS ON THIS PROBLEM SEEM TO ESCAPE THE HARDLEFT.. IF ITS SO BLOODY EASY TO GET A VISITOR VISA.. WHY DO THEY COME BY DANGEROUS BOAT??????????????????????????????????? it would have to be cheaper to come by plane anyway...WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU???????? It tells you that the POOREST and most GENUINE of refugees don't have passports or friends in high places to arrange visas

It's a bit tough trying to board an international flight in 2011 without the necessary paperwork buzz.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 11:47am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:23am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:13am: cods wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:51am: yes I know that macca and so does he... yet they keep pretending they are no different.. desperate thats all I can put it down too..or maybe wishful thinking that it will get gillard off the hook she has placed round her silly neck. I dont know what our system is.. when they come in by plane and ask for asylum are they locked up or let into the country to wander at will?? dunno how it works..I have watched border control in England and they very rarely get asylum coming in by air..they get sent back.. must cost a bloody lot as well. The process is this (1) They have paperwork ie they have an approved VISA to enter Australia for a period of 3 months anyway (2) Their application for asylum is assessed. No medical assessment is needed because it's all done when they did their VISA (3) If the processing takes more than 3 months ie their VISA have now expired - they are TECHNICALLY in Australia illegally so they are detained onshore in say Villawood - but most are given refugee status because they have paperwork Much easier to process if they have paperwork buzz and the rest are trying to tell you that the context of being ILLEGAL via overstaying a VISA is the same as entering Australia WITHOUT a VISA They are saying illegal is illegal and should be treated the same I wonder if they are happy to apply the same "illegal is illegal" argument to other areas of the law? take for example killing someone is ILLEGAL - but what is the treatment for someone who kills out of self defense compared to someone who premeditate their killing illegal is illegal  :-? Neither are illegal......how you arrive in a country has nothing to do with seeking asylum.....Claiming boat arrivals are illegal is a false argument that has no bearing in fact or the law.....The law is the law.....You have no idea do you??? :) what a spurious argument you make! the outcome does not define the legality of the method. arriving by boat without permission is intrinsically illegal. no other definition is possible.

and yet claiming these people are illegal immigrants is a LONG STRETCH at best.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 7:10am:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 11:53pm: Your tennis match got boring - I doubt anyone knows what either of you said. simple dna I provided the actual law to back my assertions helian provided "because I think so" as its reference

Actually at the time I mentally checked out of the discussion you seemed to be down 2 sets to love - must have been a great recovery if what you say now is correct - though you have a history of claiming dubious wins and at other times have managed to appear to win the point even though you were clearly wrong in substance.

In other words Macca and with all due respect I will not be taking your word for it.

Quote:

"Stop the BOATS " ?

Yes we seen the first step yeaterday when the weather almost certainly cancelled the manly ferries - This may be a warning for the Manly RL team in advance of their overseas trip to contest the grand final next weekend.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 11:47am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 11:20am: cods wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:27am: buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:56pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 24th, 2011 at 11:29pm: So what?  they are authorised arrivals.   They have gone through the immigration process and obtained a Visa. People arriving by unauthorised boats are illegal.  It's against the law.   That is the issue.   Border protection.  ::) NO They HAVEN'T They "sneak in the back door" via TOURIST VISAS - and THEN apply for asylum i Quote: Monash University associate researcher Adrienne Millbank said it was virtually impossible for genuine asylum seekers to come by plane because of strict vetting of visa applicants by immigration authorities. Ms Millbank said most people who arrived by air and then made refugee claims were manipulating the system to extend their stay in Australia. "You can certainly say that these people are untruthful because they have to declare when they get a visa that they're not intending to apply for asylum," she said. "They are no more deserving than the people who pay for people smugglers because in one case they are manipulating the system and in the other case they are trying to break in illegally" ... with a LOT more cash SO SOMETHING NEED TO BE DONE REGARDING OUR VISITING VISA SYSTEM... DOESNT IT.. THE FACT IS THEY DIDNT PAY A CRIMINAL TO GET IN TO THIS COUNTRY. WHY IS IT THE MAJOR POINTS ON THIS PROBLEM SEEM TO ESCAPE THE HARDLEFT.. IF ITS SO BLOODY EASY TO GET A VISITOR VISA.. WHY DO THEY COME BY DANGEROUS BOAT??????????????????????????????????? it would have to be cheaper to come by plane anyway...WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU???????? It tells you that the POOREST and most GENUINE of refugees don't have passports or friends in high places to arrange visas It's a bit tough trying to board an international flight in 2011 without the necessary paperwork buzz.

INDEED !


... and THANK-YOU for your validation

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

or is the concept too socialist for you ?

Ah yes Buzz the Socialist.

"It's quite easy to be a Socialist when somebody else is paying for it all"
Norman Tebbitt, Conservative Party Chairman


Buzz - a guy who pays the square root of bugger all in taxes into the country but bitches and lectures how those of us who do - should be paying more.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 11:49am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 11:47am: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:23am: Maqqa wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 10:13am: cods wrote on Sep 25th, 2011 at 9:51am: yes I know that macca and so does he... yet they keep pretending they are no different.. desperate thats all I can put it down too..or maybe wishful thinking that it will get gillard off the hook she has placed round her silly neck. I dont know what our system is.. when they come in by plane and ask for asylum are they locked up or let into the country to wander at will?? dunno how it works..I have watched border control in England and they very rarely get asylum coming in by air..they get sent back.. must cost a bloody lot as well. The process is this (1) They have paperwork ie they have an approved VISA to enter Australia for a period of 3 months anyway (2) Their application for asylum is assessed. No medical assessment is needed because it's all done when they did their VISA (3) If the processing takes more than 3 months ie their VISA have now expired - they are TECHNICALLY in Australia illegally so they are detained onshore in say Villawood - but most are given refugee status because they have paperwork Much easier to process if they have paperwork buzz and the rest are trying to tell you that the context of being ILLEGAL via overstaying a VISA is the same as entering Australia WITHOUT a VISA They are saying illegal is illegal and should be treated the same I wonder if they are happy to apply the same "illegal is illegal" argument to other areas of the law? take for example killing someone is ILLEGAL - but what is the treatment for someone who kills out of self defense compared to someone who premeditate their killing illegal is illegal  :-? Neither are illegal......how you arrive in a country has nothing to do with seeking asylum.....Claiming boat arrivals are illegal is a false argument that has no bearing in fact or the law.....The law is the law.....You have no idea do you??? :) what a spurious argument you make! the outcome does not define the legality of the method. arriving by boat without permission is intrinsically illegal. no other definition is possible. and yet claiming these people are illegal immigrants is a LONG STRETCH at best.

ILLEGAL: doing something without permission or against the law
IMMIGRANT: going to another country.

how can they possibly be anything BUT illegal immigrants. you are so desperate to define them in some nice terms but it isnt working. they are illegal immigrants and nothing can change that. why dont you argue your case case on practicalities or morals or something else.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 1:42pm:

ILLEGAL: doing something without permission or against the law IMMIGRANT: going to another country. how can they possibly be anything BUT illegal immigrants. you are so desperate to define them in some nice terms but it isnt working. they are illegal immigrants and nothing can change that. why dont you argue your case case on practicalities or morals or something else.

That's a very simplistic view that completely fails to recognize the ACTUAL definition of someone who is an ILLEGAL immigrant.

Illegal Immigrants are those who violate our Migration Act and Immigration policies, staying in Australia without adequete reason or purposes, and without authority.

Our policies do NOT discriminate based on how people arrive to this country when it comes to defining whether they are legal or illegal immigrants.

Our policies do NOT discriminate based on whether a person has committed an illegal act in coming to this country - not for those who initially begin to seek asylum, and will NOT necessarily disqualify that person from gaining genuine refugee status.

Keep trying. It's truly hilarious to see you twist and turn to try and make something become what it's not.  Perhaps you should consider becoming an alchemist?

Maqqa wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 10:13am:

buzz and the rest are trying to tell you that the context of being ILLEGAL via overstaying a VISA is the same as entering Australia WITHOUT a VISA

Your argument is flawed at this point. Nobody is entering Australia in this manner - It is perfectly legal to get to the point of entry and apply for asylum at that location. It is irrelevant if by sea or air, this is not illegal – it is however illegal to overstay a visa.


longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 1:42pm:

ILLEGAL: doing something without permission or against the law IMMIGRANT: going to another country.

Nothing which meets your first criteria has occurred

There should be an equal amount of pressure applied to fix up the visa-overstayers as well.

There are far too many who come from the likes of China and India who stay on with the wrong visas and ones which have expired.

I do not want them in Australia either.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 4:22pm:

There should be an equal amount of pressure applied to fix up the visa-overstayers as well. There are far too many who come from the likes of China and India who stay on with the wrong visas and ones which have expired. I do not want them in Australia either.

But out of curiosity, are you happy with the 50,000 odd British overstayers that are in Australia currently?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 4:36pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 4:22pm: There should be an equal amount of pressure applied to fix up the visa-overstayers as well.There are far too many who come from the likes of China and India who stay on with the wrong visas and ones which have expired. I do not want them in Australia either. But out of curiosity, are you happy with the 50,000 odd British overstayers that are in Australia currently?

Maybe you should have read it before trying to make your asinine point?

;D ;D ;D ;D

... wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 4:42pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 4:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 4:22pm: There should be an equal amount of pressure applied to fix up the visa-overstayers as well.There are far too many who come from the likes of China and India who stay on with the wrong visas and ones which have expired. I do not want them in Australia either. But out of curiosity, are you happy with the 50,000 odd British overstayers that are in Australia currently? Maybe you should have read it before trying to make your asinine point? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Perhaps you should consider WHY he thinks so?  
Quote:

There are far too many who come from the likes of China and India who stay on with the wrong visas and ones which have expired.

Hence my question stands.

but nice try, as always being completely in denial.

You also make more sense when you simply state, "Sink the boats."   I highly encourage you to stick to that, less trying to actually debate something :)