Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!! http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1356652490 Message started by Maqqa on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:54am

Title: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:54am

Article 31
Refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.

2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees
restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions
shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they
obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow
such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain
admission into another country.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by alevine on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:57am

Sorry, can you elaborate - did you need us to read it FOR YOU? Perhaps then you'll know which parts to actually highlight? ;D Dummy!!!!

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:58am

Sub-section 2 is why they are detained!!

The asylum status is what they are applying for.

Until such time they are regularised/approved they are locked up!!

Note the words "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"

I was not aware that Malaysia was threatening their life or freedom

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by MOTR on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:02am

So mandatory detention is tolerated under the UN Convention on Refugees. Tell us something we didn't know, Maqqa.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:03am

So no discussion of the facts from the left other than personal abuse

You morons demand primary evidence - we provide references and you run away

(1) UN Refugee Convention

(2) Migration Act

Where the bl00dy hell are you???!!

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:04am

MOTR wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:02am:

So mandatory detention is tolerated under the UN Convention on Refugees. Tell us something we didn't know, Maqqa.

I am glad you guys have finally realised

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by alevine on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:07am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

Malaysia is not signitory to the refugee convention. Malaysia doe not recognise any refugee rights, especially the right to work. So, yes they are threatening to their life and freedom. WHAT A DUMMY! ;D ;D ;D

As for Section 31, it clearly states that only restrictions that are necessary be applied. Nauru is necessary for refugee processing? Says who? Also all facilities will be provided that are necessary - and yet they live in tents and you have another thread out talking about how the conditions are bugger**. and the restrictions will be for a reasonable time. 5 years is not reasonable time.

This is why, dummy, you need to read AND COMPREHEND, before posting garbage. You are such a dummy!!!

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by alevine on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:24am

awWWWWWWWWWW dummy ran away again. :(

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by adelcrow on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 4:41pm

Maqqa...maybe you should have read it before you posted it ;D

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by adelcrow on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 4:56pm

This thread proves it..Maqqa is just like Tony Abbott coz he punches like a girl

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Armchair_Politician on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 6:45pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

Correct - Malaysia is NOT a signatory to the UNHCR. However, our inept federal government was more than willing to send people to that country. Yes, Nauru wasn't a signatory during the Pacific Solution, but nor did they inflict corporal punishment on detainees either - unlike Malaysia's use of the cane.

As for Section 31, what is the problem? We can't have people wandering the countryside when we don't have any idea who they are. That's why they are detained and their identity and background checked. As far as living conditions go, while it isn't Club Med, it's not a UNHCR refugee camp in Ethiopia where disease is rife, sanitation unheard of, danger of camps being attacked exists daily and the accomodation is generaly whatever you can find to put over your head unless you're lucky to get what the UN charitably describes as a tent. They are nothing but thin nylon on a flexible frame, whereas the Australian tents are made from strong canvas and are well ventilated. The tents supplied by our Army in which detainees are accomodated is luxurious by comparison to UN tents.

Australian Army tent

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

UN tent

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:19pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:07am:

I was not referring to Malaysia d1ckhead

As for who determines if Nauru is necessary or not - if you actually read it does not regulate WHERE. Therefore Australia can do as it pleases.

Section 2 also said if you don't like the way we process you - bugger off

Quote:

.....or they obtain admission into another country.

As for the reasonable time - once again that's up to Australia. If the UN thinks it's unfair then change the UN Convention.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:21pm

adelcrow wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

Maqqa...maybe you should have read it before you posted it ;D

I have read it and all alevine has done is try to divert the conversation to how Malaysia is handling the situation

So maybe you should stfu

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by the wise one on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 6:56am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

So what part don't you understand?

In sub clause 1 it states in part

coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened

Now tell us how many countries between Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq have sign the UN Refugee Convention

You do know that a country that hasn't sign the UN Refugee Convention that they can sent a person back to where they come even if they claim asylum in that country.

Now why do you think that the Liberal Party policy on asylum seekers would stop asylum seeker coming to Australia?

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:51am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:03am:

So in actual fact, we dont have any/many actual refugees.

Well that makes the discussion easy.

We have illegal entrants, mostly, if not all illegals.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:03am

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:51am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:03am:

So in actual fact, we dont have any/many actual refugees.

Well that makes the discussion easy.

We have illegal entrants, mostly, if not all illegals.

That's the crux of it prog

Article 31 sect 1 provides for someone to obtain safety by crossing the border of the NEAREST country

In the current situation - a Sri Lankan on a boat claiming asylum is unlikely to be claiming asylum seeking. If they are truly escaping danger then step across the border of the NEAREST country rather get on a boat from Malaysia

So asylum seekers to Australia either apply at an Aust Embassy overseas or they have to deliberately get to a smuggling point to get on a boat to get to Aust.

Once you get to a smuggling point - your asylum claim is really no longer valid because you are already safe!!

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by adelcrow on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:31am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:03am:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:51am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 10:03am:

So in actual fact, we dont have any/many actual refugees.

Well that makes the discussion easy.

We have illegal entrants, mostly, if not all illegals.

Given that Hockey burst into tears about sending Asylum seekers back to Malaysia and the coalition said it was wrong to send asylum seekers back there how is it considered safe?

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:34am

adelcrow wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:31am:

Given that Hockey burst into tears about sending Asylum seekers back to Malaysia and the coalition said it was wrong to send asylum seekers back there how is it considered safe?

This situation was created by Labor - so ask them about it

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by adelcrow on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:36am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:34am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:31am:

Given that Hockey burst into tears about sending Asylum seekers back to Malaysia and the coalition said it was wrong to send asylum seekers back there how is it considered safe?

This situation was created by Labor - so ask them about it

Your the one saying Malaysia is a safe place for asylum seekers despite the Opposition saying that it isn't.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:40am

adelcrow wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:36am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:34am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:31am:

Given that Hockey burst into tears about sending Asylum seekers back to Malaysia and the coalition said it was wrong to send asylum seekers back there how is it considered safe?

This situation was created by Labor - so ask them about it

Your the one saying Malaysia is a safe place for asylum seekers despite the Opposition saying that it isn't.

You are the true tip and no iceberg

I was referring to the act of asylum seeking

Once they have set foot in a country that removes the danger they were escaping from then that country assumes the asylum responsibility or process them to a third country (as per Article 31)

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by the wise one on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:42am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:03am:

Listen stupid I will type this slowly so even you can understand it

A Sri Lankan jumps on a boat and goes to Malaysia or Indonesia and gets on a boat to come to Australia to seek asylum.

Do you know why they don't claim asylum in Malaysia or Indonesia is because those countries HAVE NOT SIGN THE UN REFUGEE CONVENTION and so they are not safe countries for refugees

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:46am

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:42am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:03am:

Listen moron

So what if they have not signed the Convention?

What does that mean?

Just because they didn't sign it does not mean they don't or can't take in asylum seekers

There are hundreds of thousands in camps in both countries that signifies they will take them in

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by adelcrow on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:51am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:40am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:36am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:34am:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:31am:

Given that Hockey burst into tears about sending Asylum seekers back to Malaysia and the coalition said it was wrong to send asylum seekers back there how is it considered safe?

This situation was created by Labor - so ask them about it

Your the one saying Malaysia is a safe place for asylum seekers despite the Opposition saying that it isn't.

You are saying that once they land in a safe country they are no longer refugees despite the Coalition shedding tears for the plight of asylum seekers landing in Malaysia and refusing to send them back there because they consider it unsafe.
You really need to make up your mind ..is the Coalition right about Malaysia and the safety of asylum seekers there or not?

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 10:02am

Why not just ignore the convention?

France does routinely. Nobody has an issue with it.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by the wise one on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 10:02am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:46am:

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:42am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:03am:

Listen Stupid if a refugee ask for asylum in a country that hasn't sign the UN Refugee Convention they are class as illegal immigrant and get deported back to their home country.

Just because refugees ask for asylum in a country that hasn't sign the convention doesn't make them a legal immigrant

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by FRED. on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 10:05am

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 10:02am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:46am:

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:42am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:03am:

AHH But they can still apply ;)

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 10:58am

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 10:02am:

You just don't get tired of being wrong

The UN Convention provides a guideline for countries who sign up to it to follow. The signatory country can also walk away from it anytime they want to

Those who do not sign it - can still use the guidelines.

Under the Aust Migration Act these people are classified as ILLEGAL as well even though Aust has signed up to the UN Convention - so what's your point?

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 11:08am

FRED. wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 10:05am:

AHH But they can still apply ;)

They can apply in ANY country FRED

The UN Convention is simply a guideline and anyone can walk away from it if they want to (Article 44)

Those who signed up to the UN Convention uses the guidelines provided by this Convention

Those who have not - have their own guidelines, laws and regulations.

Generally countries will have their own laws that further expands the guidelines provided by the Convention

Leftards will tell you that the the UN Refugee Convention is the be all and end all. But in fact this is a myth. It serves as a guideline and the refugee or asylum seeker is required to obey the law of the land to which they find themselves - otherwise they can bugger off (Article 31 s.2)

Quote:

Article 2
Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 6:57pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 10:02am:

Why not just ignore the convention?

France does routinely. Nobody has an issue with it.

In 2008 France recieved 35,000 refugees.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:11pm

So what do you think, with the UN information maqqa provided, are actual legal vs illegals. 99.9% illegals? 99% illegals?

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:12pm

Macca

Quote:

Note the words "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"

I was not aware that Malaysia was threatening their life or freedom

You don’t mention Indonesia where the policy is to send them back where they came from = definitely life threatening and not a place of safety.

Macca

Quote:

I was not referring to Malaysia d1ckhead

It was the location you specified?

Macca

Quote:

As for who determines if Nauru is necessary or not - if you actually read it does not regulate WHERE. Therefore Australia can do as it pleases.

Send then to Malaysia as an example???? Think you may be wrong about that?

Macca

Quote:

I was referring to the act of asylum seeking

Once they have set foot in a country that removes the danger they were escaping from then that country assumes the asylum responsibility or process them to a third country (as per Article 31)

Only if they are signatories to the convention – if not these words most likely mean nothing.

Macca

Quote:

Those who do not sign it - can still use the guidelines.

Or not – mostly not.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by the wise one on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:47pm

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1009.html?query=al%20mas

“60 In any event, while it is literally correct to describe the applicant as an “unlawful” entrant and an “unlawful non-citizen” that is not a complete description of his position. The nomenclature adopted under the Act provides for the description of persons as “uinlawful non-citizens” because they arrived in Australia without a visa. This does not fully explain their status in Australian law as such persons are on-shore applicants for protection visas on the basis that they are refugees under the Refugees Convention.

61 The Refugees Convention is a part of conventional international law that has been given legislative effect in Australia: see ss 36 and 65 of the Act. It has always been fundamental to the operation of the Refugees Convention that many applicants for refugee status will, of necessity, have left their countries of nationality unlawfully and therefore, of necessity, will have entered the country in which they seek asylum unlawfully. Jews seeking refuge from war-torn Europe, Tutsis seeking refuge from Rwanda, Kurds seeking refuge from Iraq, Hazaras seeking refuge from the Taliban in Afghanistan and many others, may also be called “unlawful non-citizens” in the countries in which they seek asylum. Such a description, however, conceals, rather than reveals, their lawful entitlement under conventional international law since the early 1950′s (which has been enacted into Australian law) to claim refugee status as persons who are “unlawfully” in the country in which the asylum application is made.

62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.

63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an “unlawful non-citizen” under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a “right” conferred upon him under Australian law.”

Now those four paragraphs make the law pretty clear and that was upheld by three more judges in the Full Court of the Federal court in April 2003 after Akram had been deported.

So far so good on the “unlawful” = “illegal” story.

So let’s wander off 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 provisihttp://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/2003/456.html?query=behroozon, it is simply a defined phrase. It is not a phrase which necessarily involves the commission of a criminal offence.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/HCATrans/2003/458.html?query=behrooz

“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.”

Wow, so the word unlawful is legally meaningless.

Who would have thought. But wait it get’s better.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2004/37.html?query=al%20kateb

continue

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by the wise one on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:48pm

Here is the actual judgement. Paragraph 86 is there for all the world to see.

“From 1901 to 1994, federal law contained offence provisions respecting unlawful entry and presence in Australia, which was punishable by imprisonment as well as by liability to deportation. The legislation gave rise to various questions of construction which reached this Court[90]. The first of these provisions was made by the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth) (“the 1901 Act”)[91]. Section 7 thereof stated:

“Every prohibited immigrant entering or found within the Commonwealth in contravention or evasion of this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be liable upon summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than six months, and in addition to or substitution for such imprisonment shall be liable pursuant to any order of the Minister to be deported from the Commonwealth.

Provided that the imprisonment shall cease for the purpose of deportation, or if the offender finds two approved sureties each in the sum of Fifty pounds for his leaving the Commonwealth within one month.”

As enacted in 1958, s 27 of the Act continued this pattern. That provision eventually became s 77 of the Act, but this was repealed by s 17 of the Migration Reform Act 1992 (Cth) (“the 1992 Act”). It has not been replaced[92].”

Want a bit of icing on the cake.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2004/1267.html?query=hamdan

“30 It is important to emphasise that the client did not escape from custody. It would have been an offence for him to have done so: see 197A of the Act. He was released from detention pursuant to a court order. Neither was he committing or proposing to commit an offence simply because he was taking steps to avoid being detained. As Gummow J indicated in Al-Kateb at [86] ff, the current Migration Act, unlike its precursors, does not make it an offence for an unlawful non-citizen to enter or to be within Australia in contravention of, or in evasion of, the Act.

31 Further, as Hayne J observed in Al-Kateb at [207]-[208] the description of a person’s immigration status as “unlawful” serves as no more than a reference to a non-citizen not having a “valid permission to enter and remain in Australia”. The use of the term “unlawful” does not as such refer to a breach of a law.”

One would think the people could bother to read the material exposing the big lie of “unlawful” and “illegal” instead of simply shooting the messengers.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:24pm

99.9% illegals? 99% illegals?

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:27pm

99.9%

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by the wise one on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:45pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:27pm:

99.9%

Where is the link that says there is 99.9% illegals in Australia and how many of them came by plane and overstay their visa

You made the claim d!ckhead now back it up

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:51pm

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:45pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:27pm:

99.9%

Where is the link that says there is 99.9% illegals in Australia and how many of them came by plane and overstay their visa

You made the claim d!ckhead now back it up

If they overstayed their visa, then they would be part of the 99.9% wouldn't they you d!ckhead

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:56pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

99.9% illegals? 99% illegals?

You understand that you can call them illegal but it is still not actually a crime as in it is not actually illegal.

Defined as illegal but actually perfectly legal in fact.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:01pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

99.9% illegals? 99% illegals?

You understand that you can call them illegal but it is still not actually a crime as in it is not actually illegal.
Defined as illegal but actually perfectly legal in fact.

When processed (completed) and not before. I agree.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by the wise one on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:06pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:45pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:27pm:

99.9%

Where is the link that says there is 99.9% illegals in Australia and how many of them came by plane and overstay their visa

You made the claim d!ckhead now back it up

If they overstayed their visa, then they would be part of the 99.9% wouldn't they you d!ckhead

How many asylum seekers arrived with visa d!ckhead so they are NOT illegal

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:09pm

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:06pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:45pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:27pm:

99.9%

Where is the link that says there is 99.9% illegals in Australia and how many of them came by plane and overstay their visa

You made the claim d!ckhead now back it up

If they overstayed their visa, then they would be part of the 99.9% wouldn't they you d!ckhead

How many asylum seekers arrived with visa d!ckhead so they are NOT illegal

Did they overstay d!ckhead and if they didnt overstay, then they are not part of the 99.9% of illegals.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:05am

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 6:56am:

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf

More than 10 in any direction they want to head with Australia the furthest away

Therefore these people are country shopping

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:09am

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

99.9% illegals? 99% illegals?

You understand that you can call them illegal but it is still not actually a crime as in it is not actually illegal.

Defined as illegal but actually perfectly legal in fact.

It is a crime - the Migration Act is very specific about the punishment

There is a penalty - deportation!!

The asylum applicable just delays the process.

Happy to quote specific sections but then you'll have to admit you are stupid. This is the punishment for not reading before making stupid comments like yours

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:14am

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 9:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 8:24pm:

99.9% illegals? 99% illegals?

You understand that you can call them illegal but it is still not actually a crime as in it is not actually illegal.
Defined as illegal but actually perfectly legal in fact.

When processed (completed) and not before. I agree.

when processed and found to be a genuine refugee - their illegal status changes to refugee

otherwise their illegal status remains - DEPORTATION

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:18am

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:48pm:

Provided that the imprisonment shall cease for the purpose of deportation, or if the offender finds two approved sureties each in the sum of Fifty pounds for his leaving the Commonwealth within one month.”

When did Australia stopped using "Pounds"

You can always tell how credible the lefties are when they quote something like this

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:23am

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

Macca

Quote:

Note the words "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"

I was not aware that Malaysia was threatening their life or freedom

You don’t mention Indonesia where the policy is to send them back where they came from = definitely life threatening and not a place of safety. Based on your opinion. But there is no proof.

Macca
[quote]I was not referring to Malaysia d1ckhead

It was the location you specified? I am quoting the Convention that Australia signed - not Malaysia

Macca

Quote:

As for who determines if Nauru is necessary or not - if you actually read it does not regulate WHERE. Therefore Australia can do as it pleases.

Those who do not sign it - can still use the guidelines.

Or not – mostly not. How do you know?
[/quote]

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:41am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:23am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

Macca

Quote:

Note the words "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"

I was not aware that Malaysia was threatening their life or freedom

It was the location you specified? I am quoting the Convention that Australia signed - not Malaysia

Macca
[quote]As for who determines if Nauru is necessary or not - if you actually read it does not regulate WHERE. Therefore Australia can do as it pleases.

Those who do not sign it - can still use the guidelines.

Or not – mostly not. How do you know?
[/quote]
[/quote]

On almost every point you sidestep your error by making an absolutly irrelivant statment.

Quote:

You don’t mention Indonesia where the policy is to send them back where they came from = definitely life threatening and not a place of safety. Based on your opinion. But there is no proof.

It was the location you specified? I am quoting the Convention that Australia signed - not Malaysia

Malaysia is not specified in the convention - that was your addition.

Quote:

Macca
[quote]As for who determines if Nauru is necessary or not - if you actually read it does not regulate WHERE. Therefore Australia can do as it pleases.

Send then to Malaysia as an example???? Think you may be wrong about that? Sending them to Malaysia as a destination is Labor's idea. As for towing them back we have every right to[/quote]

Australia can do as it pleases That was your statment - you were wrong? It is irrelivant who's idea Malaysia was we cant send them there hence your claim of we can do as we please is not correct.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:51am

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:23am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

Macca

Quote:

Or not – mostly not. How do you know?

[/quote]

Quote:

Once they have set foot in a country that removes the danger they were escaping from then that country assumes the asylum responsibility or process them to a third country (as per Article 31)

Only if they are signatories to the convention – if not these words most likely mean nothing. It's based on the law of the land. The fact that Malaysia have been taking in these people since the Vietnam war tells us a different story to your belief[/quote]

then that country assumes the asylum responsibility or process them to a third country (as per Article 31)

A third country which is not a signatory has no compulsion to follow the rules in article 31 and don't.

The fact that Malaysia have been taking in these people since the Vietnam war tells us a different story to your belief.

Your statment was that Malaysia have a responsibility under article 31 - that was clearly BS.

These people are not taken in by Malaysia they are processed independantly by the UNHCR in Malaysia. Refugees in this position have no future in Malaysia.

Quote:

Macca
[quote]Those who do not sign it - can still use the guidelines.

Or not – mostly not. How do you know?[/quote]

The two major countries which funnel to Australia are Malaysia and Indonesia - neither are signaturies and neither use the convention.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:02pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:41am:

On almost every point you sidestep your error by making an absolutly irrelivant statment. Just because you didn't understand it does not mean I side stepped

Quote:

You don’t mention Indonesia where the policy is to send them back where they came from = definitely life threatening and not a place of safety. Based on your opinion. But there is no proof.

Refugees in Indonesia are not recognised, they can't work their children can not be educated etc. this is not a place where they can settle permanently or ligitimatly even derive enough income to survive. It is not a place of safety. Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand. They are NOT refugees until they are processed and verified as such. Until such time - they are not RECOGNISED as refugees. All the issues about work, education, settle permanently etc are not available to these illegals either in Australia until they are processed.

[quote]It was the location you specified? I am quoting the Convention that Australia signed - not Malaysia

Malaysia is not specified in the convention - that was your addition. Read my initial OP

Quote:

Macca
[quote]As for who determines if Nauru is necessary or not - if you actually read it does not regulate WHERE. Therefore Australia can do as it pleases.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:03pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:05am:

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 6:56am:

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf

More than 10 in any direction they want to head with Australia the furthest away

Therefore these people are country shopping

where are you unwise one

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:25pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:51am:

Your statment was that Malaysia have a responsibility under article 31 - that was clearly BS.

where did I say Malaysia have a responsibility under Article 31??

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:33pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

Macca

Quote:

Malaysia is not specified in the convention - that was your addition.
Read my initial OP

How did I put Malaysia into your post?

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:36pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

for dna who is really really slow

Section 1 provides for people fleeing persecution to cross the border into another country to claim asylum

The people who are taking ship from Malaysian territory into Australian territory are not claiming asylum because of persecution in Malaysia. They are claiming asylum from their original country of origin - NOT Malaysia.

So that this gets through your head and every other lefties' head.

EVERY country needs to have a set of guidelines and laws to deal with people entering their country illegally - FACT!!

They can either make it up themselves and/or they use another country's laws or the UN Convention as a guideline - FACT

FACTS - there are no country in this world that have their own laws reflecting word for word the UN Convention.

The UN Convention is a set of principle - but it's up to each country to develop their own unique application and implementation

FACTS are - even if you sign up to the UN Convention the law of that land will ALWAYS override the UN Convention. WHY? Because the country can ALWAYS walk away from the UN Convention ANYTIME under Article 44.

So while Malaysia and Indonesia have not signed up to the UN Convention - they have laws that deals with those entering their country. Even if the law is to shoot them - it is still a law.

dna tells us that Malaysia does not have to follow Article 31 - this is like saying the sun will rise tomorrow. OF COURSE they don't.

But they have used it as a guide. How can we tell?

Article 31 recognise mandatory detention. Malaysia has mandatory detention.

Article 31 assist in sending people to a 3rd country. Malaysia have been doing this for years.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:43pm

Quote:

Refugees in Indonesia are not recognised, they can't work their children can not be educated etc. this is not a place where they can settle permanently or ligitimatly even derive enough income to survive. It is not a place of safety.

[color=#0000ff]Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand. They are NOT refugees until they are processed and verified as such. Until such time - they are not RECOGNISED as refugees. All the issues about work, education, settle permanently etc are not available to these illegals either in Australia until they are processed.[/color]

Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand.

Refuge: a person who flees for refuge or safety, especially to a foreign country, as in time of political upheaval, war, etc.

Obviously when I refer to a refugee in a country not covered by Australian Law or the UN convention I am using the dictionary meaning and not the more restricted test used by the UN convention which is not applicable to them - my understanding is just fine thanks.

Again you seem to have side stepped the point with your incorrect assesment.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by philperth2010 on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:44pm

Asylum seekers continue to come to countries whom have signed the refugee convention because there own country is unsafe, which is why they are granted refugee status.....If the only way to stop people seeking freedom is to treat them inhumanly or ignore their plight for domestic political gain then we have truly reached the bottom of the barrel.....If people are deemed refugees they deserve our help not our scorn and ridicule.....WTF is wrong with you people when our political leaders can tell you it is alright to treat people like criminals when they have broken no laws and only accepted the help we offered them.....The ALP and Coalition are both guilty of playing politics with peoples lives when they have no right to ignore international treaties we have signed that lead to these drastic outcomes in the first place???

>:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:45pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:36pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:58am:

So now you agree that I was not the person who put Malaysia into the post?

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:51pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

Quote:

Refugees in Indonesia are not recognised, they can't work their children can not be educated etc. this is not a place where they can settle permanently or ligitimatly even derive enough income to survive. It is not a place of safety.

[color=#0000ff]Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand. They are NOT refugees until they are processed and verified as such. Until such time - they are not RECOGNISED as refugees. All the issues about work, education, settle permanently etc are not available to these illegals either in Australia until they are processed.[/color]

Show me this "dictionary meaning"

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:51pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

[quote author=Jim_Puddle-Duck link=1356652490/46#46 date=1356813671]
On almost every point you sidestep your error by making an absolutly irrelivant statment. Just because you didn't understand it does not mean I side stepped

I thought that your problem was that in almost every case your second statment contradicted the first and in one claimed you hadn't even said it.

Just keep moving the goal posts.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:52pm

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Labor have been playing politics and is costing us billions

The LIBs got the policy correct - Labor changed it and created a problem

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:53pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:43pm:

Quote:

Refugees in Indonesia are not recognised, they can't work their children can not be educated etc. this is not a place where they can settle permanently or ligitimatly even derive enough income to survive. It is not a place of safety.

[color=#0000ff]Your continued usage of the word REFUGEE tells me you still don't understand. They are NOT refugees until they are processed and verified as such. Until such time - they are not RECOGNISED as refugees. All the issues about work, education, settle permanently etc are not available to these illegals either in Australia until they are processed.[/color]

Show me this "dictionary meaning"

I am not going to mail you my dictionary but I feel their is about an even money chance that you have access to google and about 50 dictionaries.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:53pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

I thought that your problem was that in almost every case your second statment contradicted the first and in one claimed you hadn't even said it.

Just keep moving the goal posts.

The goal post remains the same as per my 1st and 2nd post

The people moving from one side of the border to another must be persecuted in order to enjoy the benefits of the UN Convention.

These people are not being persecuted by the Indonesian or Malaysian.

PROOF?

When they lodge their application - there's not one that claim asylum due to prosecution from Indonesia or Malaysia

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:58pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:52pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Labor have been playing politics and is costing us billions

The LIBs got the policy correct - Labor changed it and created a problem

The Liberals have played politics with this issue all of this term, Tony's priority has been to ensure he gets his way or the boats keep comming.

He got his own way in the end on Nauru and it didn't work.

Now he looks real foolish on the subject.

His advice was to just pick up the phone and call the president of Nauru - ho ho ho. Marry xmas president, we will give you a truck load full of money and get no result at all - Good one Abbott - fail.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:02pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:58pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:52pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Labor have been playing politics and is costing us billions

The LIBs got the policy correct - Labor changed it and created a problem

Get stuffed DNA

The Pacific Solution was working - Labor got rid of it and created this problem

Abbott wants Labor to be honest with the Australian people and admit they got it wrong

Then he wants the Pacific Solution reinstated IN FULL. Nauru was a portion of the Pacific Solution. We've never said it was to be the be all and end all.

Labor once again played politics and commissioned the Houston report which attempts to copy the Pacific Solution. But it's still a copy

Labor continues to want to do their way even though their way means people dying.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:13pm

The summary documentation to article 31 (interpretations) directly refutes your understanding of the UN convention.

It actually is saying that the opposite is true.

http://www.unhcr.org/419c783f4.pdf

Summary Conclusions: Article 31 of the 1951 Convention

Specific considerations
10. In relation to Article 31(1):

(a) Article 31(1) requires that refugees shall not be penalized solely by reason of unlawful entry or because, being in need of refuge and protection, they remain illegally in a country.

(b) Refugees are not required to have come directly from territories where their life or freedom was threatened.

(c) Article 31(1) was intended to apply, and has been interpreted to apply, to persons who have briefly transited other countries or where unable to find effective protection in the first country or countries to which they flee. The drafters only intended that immunity from penalty should not apply to refugees who found asylum, or who were settled, temporarily or permanently, in another country. The mere fact of UNHCR being operational in a certain country should not be used as a decisive argument for the availability of effective protection in that country.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:18pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:

Just get on the phone and call Nauru - just keep moving them goal posts.

When Malaysia was first blocked Abbott offered to help change the legislation to allow it, the deal was accepted and he back flipped and reneged on the deal.

Most of the term he refused to negotiate a position till in the end he had little choice but still refused to accept Malaysia.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:20pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:13pm:

Quote:

page 253 - last paragraph
The following summary conclusions do not necessarily represent the individual views of participants or of UNHCR, but reflect broadly the understandings emerging from the discussion.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:26pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:

Still does not explain why Labor won't admit it got it wrong

You keep focusing on Abbott when it was Labor who got it wrong

Until Labor verbally admit that it got the policy wrong in 2007 - no one will listen to what they have to say about solutions to fix their mistake.

This goes for the discussion on this forum.

Until such time - lefties admit Labor and Greens got it wrong. No solution will be discussed.

WHY?

If you don't admit that it's wrong - then there's nothing wrong

Therefore there's no need to discuss a solution?

So did Labor get it wrong?

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:35pm

Lets look at the section DNA quote and dissect it - especially the part of the sentence that he/she didn't highlight for fear it supports my position

Quote:

10. In relation to Article 31(1):

(c) Article 31(1) was intended to apply, and has been interpreted to apply, to persons who have briefly transited other countries or who are unable to find effective protection in the first country or countries to which they flee. The drafters only intended that immunity from penalty should not apply to refugees who found asylum, or who were settled, temporarily or permanently, in another country. The mere fact of UNHCR being operational in a certain country should not be used as a decisive argument for the availability of effective protection in that country.

There are over 10 countries between Iran/Afghanistan and Australia that signed up to the UN Refugee Convention

It's shorter to get to Europe than to Australia

So you are telling us that they couldn't find "effective protection" in ANY of those countries and Australia was the ONLY one

So what is "effective protection" - effective protection from the persecution they were fleeing.

So you are telling us that out of all the countries that signed the UN Convention they that was closer than Australia that they could not find effective protection?

These people are country shopping

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:52pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:18pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:

Any decision being made the last few years, i.e. the ones relivant to today were being blocked by the Liberals for political gain.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:00pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

Any decision being made the last few years, i.e. the ones relivant to today were being blocked by the Liberals for political gain.

So why change it?

Did Labor get it wrong?

If not - there's no need for change

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Dnarever on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:56pm

Labor and the Liberals are both wrong - the handling of this has been a disgrace since around 2000.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by adelcrow on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:06pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Labor and the Liberals are both wrong - the handling of this has been a disgrace since around 2000.

Very true..onshore processing is the way to go..and it would help if we didnt go around invading third world crap holes.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by the wise one on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:38pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:05am:

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 6:56am:

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf

More than 10 in any direction they want to head with Australia the furthest away

Therefore these people are country shopping

where are you unwise one

I got more to do with my time then come on here and read your bullshyte

Saying that asylum seekers are country shopping just shows how racist you are maqqa. If you want to follow Howard and his racist remarks go ahead but don't try to push it down my throat

You got no feelings for someone that is having death threats made against them and their families have you, if you did you wouldn't be carry on like a pork chop in the Synagogue about asylum seekers

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:59pm

John S wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:38pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:05am:

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 6:56am:

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf

More than 10 in any direction they want to head with Australia the furthest away

Therefore these people are country shopping

where are you unwise one

I've shown you the number of country between Iran/Afghanistan and Australia - what's your point?

They could have seek asylum in ANY of those countries but chose Australia - the furthest. Therefore they are country shopping

You lost the point so decide to call me a racist :D :D

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:08pm

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 6:56am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

the unwise one asked this question about how many countries between Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq that signed the UN Convention

I provided a list of 145 countries - but he/she stays silent on the subject instead calling me a racist because I have asserted these people are country shopping based on the fact that Australia being 3 times as far from Europe

;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:09pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Labor and the Liberals are both wrong - the handling of this has been a disgrace since around 2000.

based on your own extremist views and not on the stats or facts

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:17pm

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Labor and the Liberals are both wrong - the handling of this has been a disgrace since around 2000.

Very true..onshore processing is the way to go..and it would help if we didnt go around invading third world crap holes.

more illegals have died as a result of onshore processing

their deaths are on your head

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by adelcrow on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:25pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Labor and the Liberals are both wrong - the handling of this has been a disgrace since around 2000.

Very true..onshore processing is the way to go..and it would help if we didnt go around invading third world crap holes.

more illegals have died as a result of onshore processing

their deaths are on your head

I assume you mean refugees and many more have died or been raped in their countries of origin and while waiting in refugee camps
But I agree..there should be no deaths so lets fly them in like Clive suggested

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:30pm

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Labor and the Liberals are both wrong - the handling of this has been a disgrace since around 2000.

Very true..onshore processing is the way to go..and it would help if we didnt go around invading third world crap holes.

more illegals have died as a result of onshore processing

their deaths are on your head

I see - now Abbott is responsible for every crime in the world :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by adelcrow on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:33pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:30pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Labor and the Liberals are both wrong - the handling of this has been a disgrace since around 2000.

Very true..onshore processing is the way to go..and it would help if we didnt go around invading third world crap holes.

more illegals have died as a result of onshore processing

their deaths are on your head

I see - now Abbott is responsible for every crime in the world :D :D :D :D

Using your bizzare logic he is responsible for every rape and death in the refugee camps and those waiting for asylum in their war torn countries..coz thats where he wants the reffos to stay.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:35pm

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:30pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Labor and the Liberals are both wrong - the handling of this has been a disgrace since around 2000.

Very true..onshore processing is the way to go..and it would help if we didnt go around invading third world crap holes.

more illegals have died as a result of onshore processing

their deaths are on your head

I see - now Abbott is responsible for every crime in the world :D :D :D :D

Using your bizzare logic he is responsible for every rape and death in the refugee camps and those waiting for asylum in their war torn countries..coz thats where he wants the reffos to stay.

WTF are you on adel - I want to sell it

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by the wise one on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:45pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

John S wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:38pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 12:03pm:

where are you unwise one

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:08pm:

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2012 at 6:56am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 28^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

So you weren't happy being called a racist you had to post twice that I called you a racist so people could see where you were called a racist.

If you were not a racist you would be standing up for asylum seekers instead of putting them down on ever chance you get.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:57pm

run away unwise one

go on - RUN

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by adelcrow on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 5:09pm

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:30pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:25pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 3:06pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 2:56pm:

Labor and the Liberals are both wrong - the handling of this has been a disgrace since around 2000.

Very true..onshore processing is the way to go..and it would help if we didnt go around invading third world crap holes.

more illegals have died as a result of onshore processing

their deaths are on your head

I see - now Abbott is responsible for every crime in the world :D :D :D :D

Using your bizzare logic he is responsible for every rape and death in the refugee camps and those waiting for asylum in their war torn countries..coz thats where he wants the reffos to stay.

WTF are you on adel - I want to sell it

You're not doing a very good job of selling anything..using your logic that Gillard is responsible for the death of every boat person then Abbott will be responsible for every refugee death and rape in camps and in their country of origin.
Its your logic..not mine

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by adelcrow on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:02pm

Abbott's plan is to ruin Australia's economy so thoroughly that no refugee in their right mind would pick Australia over a third world war zone.
After a year of Tony Abbott as PM Australians will be on boats begging for the Iraqis to take them in ;D

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by progressiveslol on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:14pm

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

Yeh 250 to $300 billion in labor debt slavery is making Abbott look bad. lol like I have said, try harder dude, because your worst about Abbott is pathetic rhetoric.

Title: Re: Article 31 UN Refugee Convention - read it!!
Post by Maqqa on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 8:19pm

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:14pm:

adelcrow wrote on Dec 30^th, 2012 at 6:02pm:

Yeh 250 to $300 billion in labor debt slavery is making Abbott look bad. lol like I have said, try harder dude, because your worst about Abbott is pathetic rhetoric.

The great thing is - this is all they've got to throw

Voters have heard it all before