Australian Politics Forum

http://www.theage.com.au/national/hell-on-nauru-revealed-20130224-2ezox.html

ASYLUM seekers began to attempt suicide within a month of being sent to Nauru, internal Department of Immigration reports reveal.

The reports are among a group of incident logs relating to the first three months of the asylum seeker processing centre's operation, and released to Fairfax Media under freedom-of-information laws.

The documents show despair quickly escalated among detainees in the centre, with hunger strikes and self-harm becoming regular occurrences within a month.

The first transfer of asylum seekers took place on September 14. On October 13, two men tried to hang themselves inside their tents - one with a bed sheet and one with tent ropes.

Advertisement
An email sent by a director within the department on October 13 said one man was found hanging by a tent rope inside his tent about 6.50 pm.

''Client [redacted] was cut down by two Wilson Security client service officers who were doing … monitoring of two other clients when they saw the incident,'' the email reads. ''Client [redacted] was taken to IHMS [International Health and Medical Services] but is not co-operating with medical staff. IHMS advise he has no obvious injury but is very distressed. IHMS also advises he had been hanging for under a minute.''

Regular protests and rolling hunger strikes were reported.

On October 31, one man climbed a light pole, tied a sheet around the top of the pole in a loop and tried to hang himself, only to be caught as he fell by security guards. At the same time, another man cut his own head with a razor blade. ''These clients continue to be problematic,'' the report states.

Protests escalated the next day, after allegations a security guard had punched an asylum seeker as a crowd gathered below the pole to watch the man.

''Clients [asylum seekers] refused to formalise the complaint in writing,'' a department email about the incident read. It said some protesters tried to bully others into joining a demonstration, which dwindled to about 50, from a group of 170 earlier in the day.

Asylum Seeker Resource Centre chief Kon Karapanagiotidis said the documents revealed the true purpose of offshore processing.

''This is no accident - this is a case of these centres working exactly how they're meant to and destroying people,'' he said.

''These are not camps for processing; they're camps designed for the psychological torture of asylum seekers.''

The Immigration Department has in the past declined to confirm how many people have taken part in hunger strikes on Nauru, saying meals continued to be taken from the mess area.

But one document states that on November 3, about 260 asylum seekers were involved in a hunger strike - what the department dubs ''voluntary starvation''. At the time, there were 377 asylum seekers on the island.

''Eight clients have been treated by IHMS for heat exhaustion,'' the report reads. ''All these clients are currently involved in a voluntary starvation protest. It has been reported that these clients were at the point of collapse.''

The next day, a brief report noted that 17 people had by then been treated by IHMS after becoming involved in hunger strikes: nine had been treated with intravenous fluids, and eight had been given basic treatment.

The reports also show that staff were monitoring whether photographers appeared to be in the area, particularly when asylum seekers were gathering in view of a nearby ridge beyond the centre's boundaries.

By November 6, the strain of detention appeared to be taking its toll on some. An officer reported in a case note: ''Six ropes, shaped as nooses, were found inside a client tent … this afternoon. A cardboard cutout of a person was displayed hanging outside the tent. The ropes and cardboard figures were removed by Wilson Security.''

Asylum seekers had made five mock graves in the recreation area and written on a table, ''Hunger strike till we die. Freedom of death.''

Mr Karapanagiotidis expects to see hunger strikes and suicide attempts increase as asylum seekers become even more desperate.

''These people shouldn't have to pay with their lives just to help someone win an election,'' he said. ''The only thing that is going to change this is for the government to uphold their obligations under international human rights laws and process these people in the community.''

A spokeswoman for the department said she would not comment on individual incidents. ''No one wants to see incidents of this kind, which is why the Gillard government is moving people into community detention where appropriate.''

Dummy being a dummy as usual.

So dummy, given the miserable result of Nauru how is Scott dumbison and tiny tony going to fulfill their promise of 3 boats a year max? ;D.

This is what happens when one makes such a big issue about something they have very limited control of without the corporation of other nations.

Why should I tell you - it's not going to change your vote

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:01am:

Why should I tell you - it's not going to change your vote

so dummy has no idea. what's new.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:01am:

Why should I tell you - it's not going to change your vote

so dummy has no idea. what's new.

Of course I do

Here's an idea - you are an idiot

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:08am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:01am:

Why should I tell you - it's not going to change your vote

so dummy has no idea. what's new.

Of course I do

Here's an idea - you are an idiot

;D Aww dummy, why do you bother starting new threads you can't keep conversing in? Cmon, dummy, earn your paycheck! Explain how Tony can keep his promises ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:16am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:08am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:01am:

Why should I tell you - it's not going to change your vote

so dummy has no idea. what's new.

Of course I do

Here's an idea - you are an idiot

;D Aww dummy, why do you bother starting new threads you can't keep conversing in? Cmon, dummy, earn your paycheck! Explain how Tony can keep his promises ;D

I already told you

(1) You are an idiot

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:18am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:16am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:08am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:01am:

Why should I tell you - it's not going to change your vote

so dummy has no idea. what's new.

Of course I do

Here's an idea - you are an idiot

;D Aww dummy, why do you bother starting new threads you can't keep conversing in? Cmon, dummy, earn your paycheck! Explain how Tony can keep his promises ;D

I already told you

(1) You are an idiot

poor dummy stuck in your usual place. Time to start digging. ;D Whats going to happen when tiny tony and dumbison fail? What's going to happen when their policies to constrain "pull factors" continue to fail as they have been for the past 12 months? ;D

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:08am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:01am:

Why should I tell you - it's not going to change your vote

so dummy has no idea. what's new.

Of course I do

Here's an idea - you are an idiot

Hahahahaha! Classic ad-hom instead of addressing the topic YOU brought up!

Anyway the government didnt "wreck" nauru. It was never going to work.

SOB

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 11:29pm:

As per usual, you offer nothing in the way of solutions - only abusive comments.

If you did some research, you'd know that a central component of the Coalition border protection policy is temporary protection visas (TPVs). You only get it if you're recognised as having genuinely fled persecution. The visa was only valid for three years, after which the person had to reapply. This meant that if conditions were suitable for their return to their homeland, they would be sent home. Also, unlike Permanent visa (PV) holders, TPV recipients had no family reunion rights and no right to re-enter the country if they decide to depart Australia. In short - it performs the true function of what a genuine asylum seeker would want in that it provides a safe haven until it is okay to return home. This is a big reason why the Pacific Solution was so successful. The people we see on these boats don't want a safe haven, they want re-settlement here because they see how much better life is here and aren't prepared to wait in line.

oh dear here we go the good old lets commit suicide ploy.. how about sitting on the roof next or sewing lips together we can take it turns...

its all blackmail you know..

if things are so tuff there, why not return to where it obviously wasnt as tuff as they thought it was??? hummmmmmmmmmmm.

thats what we should be offering them as they are obviously unstable send them home they must be homesick.

I dont like being blackmailed...

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:01am:

Why should I tell you - it's not going to change your vote

so dummy has no idea. what's new.

You would love to tell us except you don't like the answer.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:28am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:01am:

Why should I tell you - it's not going to change your vote

so dummy has no idea. what's new.

You would love to tell us except you don't like the answer.

I just gave you an answer. Got a mature response for it?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:28am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:01am:

Why should I tell you - it's not going to change your vote

so dummy has no idea. what's new.

You would love to tell us except you don't like the answer.

I just gave you an answer. Got a mature response for it?

the labs idea of being mature is to call people dummy. F/wits.conga lines of idiots..gumpy..trolls

thats mature AP.

cods wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 7:27am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:45am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:28am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:01am:

Why should I tell you - it's not going to change your vote

so dummy has no idea. what's new.

You would love to tell us except you don't like the answer.

I just gave you an answer. Got a mature response for it?

the labs idea of being mature is to call people dummy. F/wits.conga lines of idiots..gumpy..trolls

thats mature AP.

No response to my suggested solution. Lefties got nothing!!! ;D ;D ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:17am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 11:29pm:

Riiight so now it's a suite of policies that are needed. What's your excuse going to be when the tpv, which did nothing but stop real refugees and their families from reuniting, also fail just like Nauru, which was dumbisons big cry in 2012?

cods wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:28am:

What a heartless contribution. Those who have committed suicide dies as a "ploy"?

Peter Freedman wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

cods wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:28am:

What a heartless contribution. Those who have committed suicide dies as a "ploy"?

did all those who drowned at sea commit suicide peter??????..

from what I have read and even Dr Phil agrees.. most suicides have no intention of dying...they are looking for attention...and many die by mistake.. sadly..

I dont like being blackmailed.. these people can return to where it isobviously much better than Nauru..and guess what we will pay for them to return.. in some cases we are even giving them money to return...

I am sorry of I dont go along with the bleeding hearts.....buts the way it is..they are holding a gun to your head... you might not mind that.

cods wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 9:56am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

cods wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:28am:

What a heartless contribution. Those who have committed suicide dies as a "ploy"?

Interesting... I don't feel like there is any gun to my head. Are they threatening Australia are they? Or are they trying to escape with their lives to a better place??

And bully, FYI when we deport we pay the cost of that. :)

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

Aside from a brief window period during the Rudd Government's tenure, little has changed since then Minister for Ethnic Cleansing, Alexander Downer, set up the death camps in the FIRST place - under the Howard Government's post 9/11 "Final Solution" for boat refugees

Quote:

Rejected refugees sent home to die: families tell harrowing stories
Cynthia Banham
August 8, 2006

NINE rejected asylum seekers forcibly repatriated by Australia to Afghanistan are believed to have been killed upon their return, and others were arrested or had family members killed, researchers who investigated the fate of the deportees say.

In one harrowing account, a Hazara Afghan deported after 16 months on Christmas Island and Nauru - despite his pleas that he and his family would be killed - lost his two children, aged six and nine. A grenade was dropped on their house four months after they returned to Afghanistan.

"My children died so that John Howard could win an election," Abdul is quoted as telling the Edmund Rice Centre, which has spent the past three years interviewing more than 80 rejected asylum seekers in 18 countries. It has released its findings to coincide with the Government's migration bill, which has divided the Coalition. The bill would ensure all asylum seekers landing on the mainland were processed offshore, out of reach of Australia's legal system.

Abdul, 31, whose surname cannot be released because he fears for his safety, now lives illegally in Pakistan. He told the researchers: "We got caught up in Australian politics. It was easy for the Australian Government after September 11 to say that the people fleeing from the Taliban were the Taliban"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rejected-refugees-sent-home-to-die/2006/08/07/1154802823160.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

The differences NOWADAYS - under the Gillard Government - are DIY suicides ( ... over OUTSOURCED murder) and the lifting of media bans in the camps, allowing reporting

ALL SHE HAS TO DO TO STOP THE BOATS IS CALL NAURU ...

Didn't Abbott get that wrong!!!

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

The differences NOWADAYS - under the Gillard Government - are DIY suicides ( ... over OUTSOURCED murder) and the lifting of media bans in the camps, allowing reporting

followers of mohammad killed them.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

When do Abbott's and his clodhoppers realise you cannot alter a legal status by voicing an OPINION ?

There is NOTHING "illegal" in being a refugee

If there WERE, Keating and Howard could have LEGALLY deported them on arrival

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

My fear is that tiny tony will not rest until it is illegal.

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

When will you realise that they are, by their very definition, illegal immigrants? Do you not realise that the official term for the vessels they come on are known as a "SIEV"? That means Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel. When will you realise that until a decision has been made on their claim for asylum, they are indeed known as "illegal immigrants". If a decision is made in which their application for asylum is approved, they are released from detention and no further action taken against them. If, however, their application is denied, they are then put through the deportation process for having arrived in Australia illegally without a valid passport and visa. Until any decision is made regarding their request for asylum, they are (or were, until Gillard decided to bunk them next door to female students at a Sydney University) detained in an immigration detention facility.

Consider yourself to now be properly and correctly informed. :)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

You can say it as many times as you like but the fact remains that these people are asylum seekers and by the refugee convention and migration act are NOT classed as what one may define as illegal immigrants.

John Smith wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:40am:

ALL SHE HAS TO DO TO STOP THE BOATS IS CALL NAURU ...

Didn't Abbott get that wrong!!!

INDEED !

One can only speculate on what his NEXT "real action" to "STOP THE BOATS" will involve ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:40am:

ALL SHE HAS TO DO TO STOP THE BOATS IS CALL NAURU ...

Didn't Abbott get that wrong!!!

INDEED !

One can only speculate on what his NEXT "real action" to "STOP THE BOATS" will involve ?

I hope trained monkeys are part of his plan.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

When will you realise that they are, by their very definition, illegal immigrants?

When will YOU admit that international AND Australian laws SPECIFICALLY state they are NOT - DESPITE the status of the vessels that carry them here ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:49am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

When will you realise that they are, by their very definition, illegal immigrants?

i
When will YOU realise ( ...admit) that international AND Australian laws SPECIFICALLY state they are NOT - DESPITE the status of the vessels that carry them here ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:49am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

When will you realise that they are, by their very definition, illegal immigrants?

When will YOU admit that international AND Australian laws SPECIFICALLY state they are NOT - DESPITE the status of the vessels that carry them here ?

Doing so would require armchair to read the necessary documents.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

Doing so would require armchair to read the necessary documents.

Well unless the Tele publishes them, Puddle's got no hope ;D

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

The whole refugee thing bores me a bit now to be honest.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

You don't blame opposition for Government implemented policy.

Just like with the surplus promise why didn't the Government have more balls and fight back with its own policy.

This Government is weak and blaming opposition for a policy the Government ran with is absurd.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

When will you realise that until a decision has been made on their claim for asylum, they are indeed known as "illegal immigrants".

errr...no. 100% Wrong.

They are known as unlawful non-citizens under the Act

Not "illegal immigrants".

There is nothing illegal about seeking asylum

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

Quite right. It is the government's fault Nauru is a failure. The Government was stupid to use the Liberal's policy - because it was already known to be a failure under Howard.

Nauru was a failure under the Libs
Nauru is a failure under teh ALP

Surprise, surprise.

But it is still part of Liberal policy, as well as Labour.

They should have listened to the Greens all along

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:49am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

When will you realise that they are, by their very definition, illegal immigrants?

When will YOU admit that international AND Australian laws SPECIFICALLY state they are NOT - DESPITE the status of the vessels that carry them here ?

Doing so would require armchair to read the necessary documents.

Actually, doing so would require Armchair to be wrong... but he's not.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:49am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

When will you realise that they are, by their very definition, illegal immigrants?

When will YOU admit that international AND Australian laws SPECIFICALLY state they are NOT - DESPITE the status of the vessels that carry them here ?

Doing so would require armchair to read the necessary documents.

Actually, doing so would require Armchair to be wrong... but he's not.

No - you are wrong.

Read section 14 of the Migration Act

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s14.html

Seeking asylum is not illegal.

You are wrong. 100% wrong.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

When will you realise that they are, by their very definition, illegal immigrants?

When will you realise that until a decision has been made on their claim for asylum, they are indeed known as "illegal immigrants"

Consider yourself to now be properly and correctly informed. :)

No, that's not correct information at all.

If they are seeking asylum they are not illegal immigrants: they are asylum seekers (and it's not illegal to be an asylum seeker).

In fact, The Department of Immigration and Citizenship refer to people arriving in Australia by boat without a valid visa as Irregular Maritime Arrivals.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

Macca was pleased when Gillard buckled to impliment the Liberals policy - after blocking any other option for about 12 months saying just get on the phone to Nauru Tony Macca and the libs were over the moon. It didn't work.

The only option which Tony didn't block didn't work.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

Wow, thick as a brick you are! Yes, you are right that there is nothing illegal about claiming asylum. It's the method of arrival that makes them illegals via their attempt to enter Australian territory without a passport or visa. It is a breach of the Immigration Act (hence, it is illegal) to enter this country without those documents. You cannot even board a Qantas flight in Los Angeles or Auckland or London to come here without first showing your passport. The same applies for those who come by boat. If Jacques Cousteau were still alive and he came here on his yacht and didn't have his passport and visa, he'd be denied entry. It's that simple. There is no stigma attached to these people being called "illegal immigrants". It's just a fact and part of a process that begins the assessment of their application. If they're successful in applying then they are not charged with anything and will have no criminal record. If they're unsuccessful in applying they will then commence the process for deportation.

Now, did I dumb that down sufficiently for your level of intelligence so you can understand the true facts???

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

the government needs to be held fully accountable for adopting the Liberal's useless, ineffective and expensive policy.

What will they do next? Ditch the carbon price and give us "Direct Action" - because Tony wants it?
It was bad enough having a Liberal government delivering stupid policies like Nauru. I don't know why Labor has to copy them.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

Read section 14 of the Act. You are wrong. 100% wrong.

(1) A non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen is an unlawful non-citizen.

(2) To avoid doubt, a non-citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen.

They are not illegal immigrants.

THere is nothing illegal about seeking asylum.
An asylum seeker is NOT an illegal immigrant.

Read the legislation moron.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

It's the method of arrival that makes them illegals via their attempt to enter Australian territory without a passport or visa.

No, if they are claiming asylum, that does not make them illegal immigrants.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

I never said it was illegal to seek asylum. Not once. I can see where you're confused though. Let me dumb it down even more for you. Those people who come by boat could not be detained without a legal basis for doing so. We also can't let them just run around willy-nilly. So for the period of time that it takes their application for asylum to be requested, they are detained as illegal immigrants (i.e. they did not enter through a recognised port, nor did they carry any relevant identifying documentation such as a passport and visa). You know what happens if their claim is successful or not, so I'm not going to bother repeating it for the Dumber half of Dumb & Dumber...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

You said:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

When will you realise that they are, by their very definition, illegal immigrants?

You were 100% wrong

They are not "illegal immigrants"

There is nothing illegal about seeking asylum.
An asylum seeker is NOT an illegal immigrant.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

So for the period of time that it takes their application for asylum to be requested, they are detained as illegal immigrants (i.e. they did not enter through a recognised port, nor did they carry any relevant identifying documentation such as a passport and visa).

Nope, they're detained as Irregular Maritime Arrivals.

Asylum seekers aren't illegal immigrants.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

Awww, now you're just throwing the facts right out the window. First of all, the Pacific Solution worked. There were less than a dozen people in detention when Rudd took over. We now get in 2-3 weeks the number of boats Howard got in a year. Since Rudd scrapped the pacific Solution, more than 30,000 have come by boat with around 1,000 perishing at sea on Labor's watch. So it is neither an ineffective nor useless policy. As for the cost, you must enjoy making a jackass out of yourself. The policy known as the Pacific Solution cost taxpayers less than $100m per year to run whereas under Labor the cost to taxpayers now exceeds $1.5 billion per year, more than 15 times the cost of the Pacific Solution!

Just give up before you make a bigger jackass of yourself.

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:33am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 11:25am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

The 'problem' is not nauru.

if people want to come here illegally, then attempt suicide when they are processed, that's their call.

Wrong again. Always wrong.

Once a person arrives in Australia and seeks asylum they are in effect applying for a permanent protection visa which is dealt with under the migration act as perfectly legal, and dictates the refugee convention articles apply within our domestic law. One of which states you don't discriminate based on if the person broke the law in the method of arrival into the country. Nothing illegal there either. You are so wrong it's hilarious, and again I suggest you go read.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

Yes. No doubt they'll vote for Mr Abbott at the next election.

Good work, Maqqa.

I seem to recall having this discussion before.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

Nauru isn't working. What's Tony's next plan? ;D

And think about tpvs: they are disgusting from the point of view of our responsibilities under the refugee convention. But apart from that they are hardly a deterrent for people seeking to escape with their lives.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

The other day you proved to everyone, beyond all doubt, that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You don't understand what the word "alien" means.

You don't understand what amended legislation is.

You don't know how to read current legislation.

The only thing that was "smashed" was what little was left of your dignity.

Not just a troll, but a boastful troll.

I seem to recall having this discussion before.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

... and I've continued where you left off. Good fun!!! ;D

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

You Dummy got so confused by the end of it you were delivering references that were contradicting your argument within the same post ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

... and I've continued where you left off. Good fun!!! ;D

You can have your delusions if it helps you sleep better but the FACTS REMAIN that you haven't said or correct thing on this topic, at least for today. Less taking orders from the liberal base camp and more understanding the actual act an the actual refugee convention.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

... and I've continued where you left off. Good fun!!! ;D

That's 100% correct.

You have continued to provide incorrect information where Maqqa left off.

Well done.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

You reckon? How so? What makes them so disgusting? They provide precisely what a genuine refugee would want - safe haven. That's the point of TPV's. It's a "temporary" visa, not a stepping stone to permanent residence in Australia. The visa is designed to allow its holder to be here until it is safe for them to return home. It is a deterrent for those seeking to just jump the queue but does not deter genuine asylum seekers. So what about this is disgusting? Is it the fact that these people won't be living in squalid UN camps with little shelter, virtually non-existent medical care and very little in the way of safety? Those poor people having doctors and nurses fuss over them, school lessons for their children, three meals a day and a safer environment than what exists in Kings Cross in Sydney at 11pm at night! TPV's aren't meant to deter people fleeing in fear for their lives, they're meant to deter country-shopping queue-jumpers. You don't even understand what the TPV's do!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

So youve proven the point: if 9 out of 10 boat people are genuine refugees then the tpvs will do absolutely nothing in terms of deterrent. They may of course cause death to those not wishing to never see their families gain, but hey who cares, right?

And it's disgusting because it goes against the refugee convention when it comes to family reunion. We are always goin on about the family being the unit that makes our society strong, and yet we deny this to others within our society? Moronic policy, which only a moron could hav come up with; hi vanstone, ruddock and Howard.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:52pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

... and I've continued where you left off. Good fun!!! ;D

That's 100% correct.

You have continued to provide incorrect information where Maqqa left off.

Well done.

;D ;D

you keep telling yourself that

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:51pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

... and I've continued where you left off. Good fun!!! ;D

yet I keep smashing you with facts and you stay quiet

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

If the Pacific Solution is moronic policy, then please bring it back!!! More of the moronic policy please, because it worked a treat - even the people smugglers said so on Four Corners on the ABC!!!

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:01pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:51pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

... and I've continued where you left off. Good fun!!! ;D

yet I keep smashing you with facts and you stay quiet

Which fact that you have previously presented are you talking about? The one where your illegal until you are an asylum seeker which only occurs once you are granted refugee status? Or the one where refugees are aliens because they must be provided with the minimal conditions of those given to an "alien"? ;D
Dummyyyyy

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

If the Pacific Solution is moronic policy, then please bring it back!!! More of the moronic policy please, because it worked a treat - even the people smugglers said so on Four Corners on the ABC!!!

It basically has and has done nothing. What's tonys next plan? How will he deliver on his promise of 3 a year max?? ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

You Dummy got so confused by the end of it you were delivering references that were contradicting your argument within the same post ;D

Yes, that's the bit I love the most.

In an attempt to support his own "argument", he posts references to section 14 of the amended Migration Act 1958 which clearly demonstrates that asylum seekers are not "illegals".

And to make it even funnier, the first words of s14(2) are "To avoid doubt ... ".

;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

The whole issue here is because these people are allowed to jump the processing queue that they make the journey

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

The whole issue here is because these people are allowed to jump the processing queue that they make the journey

LOL ;D

"jump the queue" ;D

Priceless :)

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

The whole issue here is because these people are allowed to jump the processing queue that they make the journey

What queue. What about those who are generally "processed" faster than others by UNHCR? Are they also to be treated worse?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:06pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:03pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 12:05pm:

The advice was that Nauru would no longer work. Tony insisted that it was the only off shore solution he would consider - he finally got his way and it has failed.

If the Pacific Solution is moronic policy, then please bring it back!!! More of the moronic policy please, because it worked a treat - even the people smugglers said so on Four Corners on the ABC!!!

It basically has and has done nothing. What's tonys next plan? How will he deliver on his promise of 3 a year max?? ;D

Bring back TPV's and we'll see what happens...

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

The whole issue here is because these people are allowed to jump the processing queue that they make the journey

What queue. What about those who are generally "processed" faster than others by UNHCR? Are they also to be treated worse?

Our refugee intake queue. For every one illegal immigrant who gets a spot, there is one person in some putrid UN camp in Africa who misses out.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

You Dummy got so confused by the end of it you were delivering references that were contradicting your argument within the same post ;D

They referenced it

As I said - the reason why I called them "illegal" are

(1) The Migration Act referenced it
(2) The UN Convention referenced it
(3) They broke Australian law
(4) Illegal means unlawful

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

The whole issue here is because these people are allowed to jump the processing queue that they make the journey

What queue. What about those who are generally "processed" faster than others by UNHCR? Are they also to be treated worse?

They should be treated based on first come first served or in your opinion they must be rightly treated because they have more money

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

The whole issue here is because these people are allowed to jump the processing queue that they make the journey

What queue. What about those who are generally "processed" faster than others by UNHCR? Are they also to be treated worse?

Our refugee intake queue. For every one illegal immigrant who gets a spot, there is one person in some putrid UN camp in Africa who misses out.

Oh so this said queue I'd managed by who? And is it FIFO? Don't think soooo. So, what happens when we move people ahead of others? They also on tpvs?

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

You Dummy got so confused by the end of it you were delivering references that were contradicting your argument within the same post ;D

Where in 1) and 2) is it referenced? Where does it stipulate that asylum seekers are illegal?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

You Dummy got so confused by the end of it you were delivering references that were contradicting your argument within the same post ;D

Where in 1) and 2) is it referenced? Where does it stipulate that asylum seekers are illegal?

Do a search

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

The whole issue here is because these people are allowed to jump the processing queue that they make the journey

What queue. What about those who are generally "processed" faster than others by UNHCR? Are they also to be treated worse?

They should be treated based on first come first served or in your opinion they must be rightly treated because they have more money

But they areNt first come first served. To think so is delusional and completely misinformed. So what do we do with those we know were pushed ahead of others?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

The whole issue here is because these people are allowed to jump the processing queue that they make the journey

What queue. What about those who are generally "processed" faster than others by UNHCR? Are they also to be treated worse?

Our refugee intake queue. For every one illegal immigrant who gets a spot, there is one person in some putrid UN camp in Africa who misses out.

LOL ;D

The ignorance is astounding.

1. Asylum seekers coming by boat are not illegal immigrants (we've established that fact).

2. Australia does not have a "refugee intake queue".

Australia has a Refugee and Humanitarian program which consists of two different components: Onshore - Protection, and Offshore - Resettlement.

::)

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

You Dummy got so confused by the end of it you were delivering references that were contradicting your argument within the same post ;D

Where in 1) and 2) is it referenced? Where does it stipulate that asylum seekers are illegal?

Do a search

I have but I must not be using the same search as I can't find anything that supports your dummy argument.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:24pm:

But they are first come first served. To think so is delusional and completely misinformed. So what do we do with those we know were pushed ahead of others?

Let me clarify that by saying - first apply first assessed

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

You Dummy got so confused by the end of it you were delivering references that were contradicting your argument within the same post ;D

Where in 1) and 2) is it referenced? Where does it stipulate that asylum seekers are illegal?

Do a search

I have but I must not be using the same search as I can't find anything that supports your dummy argument.

Then you haven't searched

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:24pm:

But they are first come first served. To think so is delusional and completely misinformed. So what do we do with those we know were pushed ahead of others?

Let me clarify that by saying - first apply first assessed

But not relocated, not by a long shot. And first applied first assessed I doubt would be correct.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:25pm:

Processing queue

That's why Labor have tried to copy LIBs with the No Disadvantage Test

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

You Dummy got so confused by the end of it you were delivering references that were contradicting your argument within the same post ;D

Where in 1) and 2) is it referenced? Where does it stipulate that asylum seekers are illegal?

Do a search

I have but I must not be using the same search as I can't find anything that supports your dummy argument.

Then you haven't searched

Or I use government website and google, and not dummy.com

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:27pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:24pm:

But they are first come first served. To think so is delusional and completely misinformed. So what do we do with those we know were pushed ahead of others?

Let me clarify that by saying - first apply first assessed

But not relocated, not by a long shot. And first applied first assessed I doubt would be correct.

If you doubt then you don't understand the No Disadvantage Test that Labor is trying to copy and implement

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:28pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:25pm:

Processing queue

That's why Labor have tried to copy LIBs with the No Disadvantage Test

Which is ambiguous at best because there is no such thing as a processing queue. Hence why they claim the average is 5 years but noone really knows because some can be 10 years; BECAUSE there is no queue.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:28pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:27pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:24pm:

But they are first come first served. To think so is delusional and completely misinformed. So what do we do with those we know were pushed ahead of others?

Let me clarify that by saying - first apply first assessed

But not relocated, not by a long shot. And first applied first assessed I doubt would be correct.

If you doubt then you don't understand the No Disadvantage Test that Labor is trying to copy and implement

Sigh, see above dummy.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Bring back TPV's and we'll see what happens...

History will tell you what happens Puddle

More women & children will get on leaky boats & drown.

Quote:

In this vexed debate, TPVs are almost a joy to discuss in that it is relatively easy to establish facts around them. We know from Immigration Department records the numbers of people who arrived by boat on a month-by-month basis before and after TPVs were introduced. We know they were introduced in late October 1999. We know that the numbers of boat arrivals increased in 2000 and 2001 compared with 1999.

Quote:

We know that in 1999, almost all asylum seekers who came by boat were men, and there were few women and children. We know this, again because of Immigration Department records and also because the detention centres were built to accommodate mainly men; there were few family compounds. This was reported by departmental officials [2].

Quote:

We also know that the demographics of asylum seekers began to change after TPVs were introduced. Gradually but inexorably, the boats started to carry more women and children, in relative and absolute terms. Three quarters of the passengers on the SIEV X were women and children.

So Puddle more women & children will drown is what will happen.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Where in 1) and 2) is it referenced? Where does it stipulate that asylum seekers are illegal?

It stipulates the exact opposite, actually.

It clearly states that they are no longer "illegal".

Here, see for yourself:

"To avoid doubt, a non-citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen."

The problem with young Maqqa is he doesn't understand what the word "was" means and he doesn't understand what amended legislation is. Quite astounding to think that an adult can read that simple line from the Act and still not understand what it means.

::)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Bring back TPV's and we'll see what happens...

History will tell you what happens Puddle

More women & children will get on leaky boats & drown.

Quote:

[quote]We know that in 1999, almost all asylum seekers who came by boat were men, and there were few women and children. We know this, again because of Immigration Department records and also because the detention centres were built to accommodate mainly men; there were few family compounds. This was reported by departmental officials [2].

Quote:

So Puddle more women & children will drown is what will happen.[/quote]

All the more reason to bring back TPV's. So glad you agree finally! :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Where in 1) and 2) is it referenced? Where does it stipulate that asylum seekers are illegal?

Isn't Christmas Island, Nauru and Manus Island outside Australia's migration zone???

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

Where in 1) and 2) is it referenced? Where does it stipulate that asylum seekers are illegal?

Isn't Christmas Island, Nauru and Manus Island outside Australia's migration zone???

Omg. How about you learn to read sentences and then ask that question again.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Bring back TPV's and we'll see what happens...

History will tell you what happens Puddle

More women & children will get on leaky boats & drown.

Quote:

[quote]We also know that the demographics of asylum seekers began to change after TPVs were introduced. Gradually but inexorably, the boats started to carry more women and children, in relative and absolute terms. Three quarters of the passengers on the SIEV X were women and children.

So Puddle more women & children will drown is what will happen.[/quote]

All the more reason to bring back TPV's. So glad you agree finally! :)[/quote]

Oh sigh, what an idiot

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Bring back TPV's and we'll see what happens...

History will tell you what happens Puddle

More women & children will get on leaky boats & drown.

Quote:

So Puddle more women & children will drown is what will happen.

All the more reason to bring back TPV's. So glad you agree finally! :)[/quote]

Oh sigh, what an idiot[/quote]

Don't be too hard on yourself. It's not your fault you were born stupid.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

All the more reason to bring back TPV's. So glad you agree finally!

But isn't the whole reason to STOP THE BOATS one of people drowning?
I'm sure that's what all the Libs & Labor for that matter tell us.

But from your post it would seem that is not the case, are you afraid of Brown People Puddle?
Put off by weird smells such as Tumeric, Star Aniseed, Curry Leaves?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:52pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

All the more reason to bring back TPV's. So glad you agree finally!

The boats were practically stopped until Rudd decided to try to fix something that wasn't broken. Labor wouldn't be in this mess if he'd left everything alone!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 3:57pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:52pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

All the more reason to bring back TPV's. So glad you agree finally!

The boats were practically stopped until Rudd decided to try to fix something that wasn't broken. Labor wouldn't be in this mess if he'd left everything alone!

Yes Yes we know that, well we think we know, no one can really say what our refugee landscape would look like based on If buts or maybe.

But you didn't answer any of my questions

Isn't reintroducing TPV's & offshore processing about saving lives?
Do brown people scare you?
Does anything that doesn't come from her majesty's cook book offend you?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:01pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 3:57pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:52pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

All the more reason to bring back TPV's. So glad you agree finally!

The boats were practically stopped until Rudd decided to try to fix something that wasn't broken. Labor wouldn't be in this mess if he'd left everything alone!

Yes Yes we know that, well we think we know, no one can really say what our refugee landscape would look like based on If buts or maybe.

But you didn't answer any of my questions

Isn't reintroducing TPV's & offshore processing about saving lives? - Yes, they were an effective deterrent under Howard and thus fewer people put their lives at risk at sea.
Do brown people scare you? - No, just stupid Left-wing nutjobs.
Does anything that doesn't come from her majesty's cook book offend you? - Huh???

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:

Isn't reintroducing TPV's & offshore processing about saving lives? -
Yes, they were an effective deterrent under Howard and thus fewer people put their lives at risk at sea.

Then why did you post this in response to being shown historical data that proved TPV's increase the death toll for women & children.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

All the more reason to bring back TPV's.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:

Do brown people scare you? -
No, just stupid Left-wing nutjobs.

I hope your not referring to me Puddle

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:

Does anything that doesn't come from her majesty's cook book offend you? -
Huh???

I asked if weird smells put you off, mind you any country that names something you eat "SPOTTED DICK" is pretty freaky ;)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:10pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:

Isn't reintroducing TPV's & offshore processing about saving lives? -
Yes, they were an effective deterrent under Howard and thus fewer people put their lives at risk at sea.

Then why did you post this in response to being shown historical data that proved TPV's increase the death toll for women & children. What data??? You didn't prove anything.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:

All the more reason to bring back TPV's.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:

Do brown people scare you? -
No, just stupid Left-wing nutjobs.

I hope your not referring to me Puddle - I'll leave you to ponder that...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:04pm:

Does anything that doesn't come from her majesty's cook book offend you? -
Huh???

I asked if weird smells put you off, mind you any country that names something you eat "SPOTTED DICK" is pretty freaky ;)

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(4) Illegal means unlawful

Oh dear ::)

And what does "alien" mean Maqqa?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

Then why did you post this in response to being shown historical data that proved TPV's increase the death toll for women & children.
What data??? You didn't prove anything.

Didn't you read and understand post 91?
It specificly shows the increase in women and children on boats from the departments own data.
It also specificly shows that TPV's didn't deter asslyum seekers in fact boat arrivals increased between their introduction on NOV 99 and 2001.

So if they failed in 99 to 01 and offshore processing is now failing how will they suddenly work when Tones PM?

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes, the Migration Act references it by saying that "illegal" is no longer applicable. The reference in the current Migration Act actually destroys your "argument".

"To avoid doubt, a non-citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen."

In case you weren't aware Maqqa, it is now after 1 September 1994: versions of the Act using the term "illegal" are now superseded (it's a big word, I know, but look it up in a dictionary).

Before September 1994: "illegal entrant".

After September 1994: "unlawful non-citizen".

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

Then why did you post this in response to being shown historical data that proved TPV's increase the death toll for women & children.
What data??? You didn't prove anything.

The previous Howard governments' Pacific Solution policy, which incorporated TPV's, did not commence until 2001. Used in conjunction with TPV's the effect was drastic, as you can see in the graph below...

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes

they are illegal

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

Then why did you post this in response to being shown historical data that proved TPV's increase the death toll for women & children.
What data??? You didn't prove anything.

Cmon Puddle, we agree that Howards offshore processing "Stopped the Boats"
As already discussed the "offshore" part of that system is not stopping the boats now
And as I demonstrated TPV's didnt decrease arrivals just changed it from single men to women and children.

So why are you trying to say all we have to do is go back to Howards policy?
The offshore parts failing
Tpv's just encourage women and children to be on boats.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:41pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

Then why did you post this in response to being shown historical data that proved TPV's increase the death toll for women & children.
What data??? You didn't prove anything.

The offshore part of Gillard's farcial border security policy is failing because people smugglers know Gillard doesn't have her heart in it, that she doesn't truly believe this to be the solution. She persists in refusing to bring back TPV's, so we have to ask - why? What does she have to lose by doing so? We've had more than 30,000 people arrive since 2007, so it isn't like re-introducing TPV's could make it any worse. It worked before and as far as we all know there is no reason why they won't work again because TPV's do not provide an opportunity for permanent residency at the end. That, in itself, is an effective deterrent.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:45pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:41pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

Then why did you post this in response to being shown historical data that proved TPV's increase the death toll for women & children.
What data??? You didn't prove anything.

Well as you said in another thread we have 7 months to wait.

What will your excuse be if as I predict the boats still come after TPV's are introduced.

And before you respond in the expect way I will admit I was wrong if they stop.

OH and BTW its not Gillards offshore she wanted Malaysia, its Tones.

What was the manta

All the PM needs to do to stop the boats is pick up the phone to Naru

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:45pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:41pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

Then why did you post this in response to being shown historical data that proved TPV's increase the death toll for women & children.
What data??? You didn't prove anything.

Unlike Gillard, who has had more positions on this issue than one of Craig Thomson's prostitutes has had in bed, Abbott and the Coalition has been steadfast for a decade in advocating offshore processing in conjunction with other aspects of the Pacific Solution - including TPV's and turning back boats when it is safe to do so. So your lie that Abbott said Gillard ONLY had to call Nauru is a pretty bold lie because he did not say that was ALL that Gillard had to do.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

OK I'll take that.
Now how about answering my question?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

What will your excuse be if as I predict the boats still come after TPV's are introduced.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 6:38pm:

TPVs did not "stop any boats". THey just caused more deths at sea.

More than 8000 TPVs were issued to people who came to Australia by boat — most of whom went on to be granted permanent protection visas. It did not stop boats — in fact the evidence shows that more people got onto boats once this visa class was introduced with more than 6000 coming in 2001.

But it did change who was coming — because of the punitive condition placed on the TPV particularly keeping families apart, the demographics of who got onto boats changed from single men to more women and children. Just under 25% of arrivals in 2001 were children compared to some 6% before the TPV was introduced. And the result? Overcrowded boats and tragedies.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/07/03/coalitions-asylum-seeker-policy-lost-at-sea/

The only thing that Howard did that "stopped the boats" was tuning them back.

But of course - there are 2 problems with this -
1. The Navy (rightly) doesn't want to do it, because they realise is will cause deaths, and
2. Tony will have to explain why he opposed the ALP's Malaysian solution because the Malaysia has not signed up to the UN agreement on the treatment of refugees, while he wants to send people back to Indonesia, who have also not signed up to the UN agreement on the treatment of refugees,

A good argument by AP. The Liberals have been consistently heartless, while Labor has become heartless more recently. Both for tawdry political advantage.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes

they are illegal

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes

they are illegal

No. Learn to read. They are "unlawful non-citizens"

Not illegal.

It is legal to seek asylum
It is not illegal to be an unlawful non-citizen.

An unlawful non-citizen with a legitimate claim for asylum will be granted a visa when their claim is verified. - Very good! You're slowly catching on. However, when something is "unlawful", that means it is illegal.

At no time in this process has the person done anything illegal. - Awww, wrong again! I thought you were getting better. They tried to enter Australia without a passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without these documents under the Customs and Immigrations Acts.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

It wasn't in regard to "Rudd's Kyoto Billions" in fines, was it ?
Over that ratification ABBOTT confessed was a mistake by the Howard Government in not doing ?
Along with the "billions in compensation claims" that a SORRY by the Government of the day would result in ?
That same SORRY Tony Abbott confessed was a "big mistake" by the Howard Government, in not saying ?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes

they are illegal

Anyone is entitled to go to a point of entry and request asylum it is not illegal.

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:11pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

I smashed both of you lefties on here the other day and you still have not learnt

Quote:

http://www.news.com.au/national-old/kevin-rudd-was-right-to-apologise-to-stolen-generations-says-tony-abbott/story-e6frfkvr-1225850132879

"We should have ratified Kyoto," he said during a special edition of the ABC's Q&A program last night.

"Maintaining our Kyoto commitments but not ratifying Kyoto looked odd and, frankly, we should have apologised to indigenous people.

"It was overdue, it was gracious and I think the whole country felt buoyed."

"We lost the election, so I guess by definition we should have tried some things differently."

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Anyone is entitled to go to a point of entry and request asylum it is not illegal.

And if they continue to avoid every other point of application for asylum then they should not be rewarded

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Anyone is entitled to go to a point of entry and request asylum it is not illegal.

And if they continue to avoid every other point of application for asylum then they should not be rewarded

over 90% of boat people under Howard were awarded asylum either here or in NZ ... maybe you should tell the libs to stop rewarding them before they announce their policy ... wouldn't want them to get it wrong now would we .....

John Smith wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Anyone is entitled to go to a point of entry and request asylum it is not illegal.

And if they continue to avoid every other point of application for asylum then they should not be rewarded

For the period 2001-2007 that equates to 1300

Under Gillard - 33,000 illegals arrived for processing

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 9:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Anyone is entitled to go to a point of entry and request asylum it is not illegal.

And if they continue to avoid every other point of application for asylum then they should not be rewarded

For the period 2001-2007 that equates to 1300

Under Gillard - 33,000 illegals arrived for processing

Not illegal.
Please learn how to read.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:33pm:

Not illegal.Please learn how to read.

...yes illegal.

Please learn how to read....

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 9:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Anyone is entitled to go to a point of entry and request asylum it is not illegal.

And if they continue to avoid every other point of application for asylum then they should not be rewarded

For the period 2001-2007 that equates to 1300

Under Gillard - 33,000 illegals arrived for processing

1300 in Australia ... why don't you add up the ones he sent to NZ who later made their way here

Swagman wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:38pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:33pm:

Not illegal.Please learn how to read.

...yes illegal.

Please learn how to read....

No, not illegal.

Show us where it says in the current legislation that asylum seekers, today, are illegal.

Waiting ...

........by "current legislation" are you referring to the Migration Act by chance GPC? :-?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

Very good! You're slowly catching on. However, when something is "unlawful", that means it is illegal.

Um, no. ::)

Try using that line in a court of law and see how far it gets you.

'Unlawful' and 'illegal' are not the same thing.

Swagman wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

........by "current legislation" are you referring to the Migration Act by chance GPC? :-?

Yes, the current version of the Migration Act 1958.

Not superseded versions.

Migration Act Section 14.2

Quote:

14 (2) To avoid doubt, a non-citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen

I believe the terminology in the current version is "unlawful non-citizen"

AKA -------> I L L E G A L ....entrant......... :-? :-?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

Very good! You're slowly catching on. However, when something is "unlawful", that means it is illegal.

Um, no. ::)

Try using that line in a court of law and see how far it gets you.

'Unlawful' and 'illegal' are not the same thing.

....'unlawful' and 'illegal' are synonymous

Swagman wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:58pm:

Migration Act Section 14.2

Quote:

I believe the terminology in the current version is "unlawful non-citizen"

That's correct.

Not "illegals", and not "illegal immigrant".

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 9:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Anyone is entitled to go to a point of entry and request asylum it is not illegal.

And if they continue to avoid every other point of application for asylum then they should not be rewarded

For the period 2001-2007 that equates to 1300

Under Gillard - 33,000 illegals arrived for processing

The majority of "illegals" come by plane.

"58,000 illegal immigrants in Australia have arrived by plane"

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050

Another fail for Maqqa.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:21am:

That's correct.

Not "illegals", and not "illegal immigrant".

Sorry -> 'Unlawfull Non-Citizen' is synonymous with 'Illegal entrant'

You can also be an 'Unlawfull Non-Citizen' AKA 'Illegal entrant' if you overstay your visa conditions.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:24am:

The majority of "illegals" come by plane."58,000 illegal immigrants in Australia have arrived by plane"http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-...Another fail for Maqqa

Nope they arrive legally (EG. with a Visa as Lawful non-citizens) and then overstay their visa conditions and hence become unlawfull non-citizens (AKA "illegals") . Big difference GPC. :-?

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

Nope they arrive legally (EG. with a Visa as Lawful non-citizens) and then overstay their visa conditions and hence become unlawfull non-citizens (AKA "illegals") . Big difference GPC. :-?

My statement was 100% correct: the majority of "illegals" come by plane.

I didn't say anything about them arriving "illegally".

Moreover, the story I linked to didn't say anything about them arriving illegally: it clearly states that they are " visa overstayers".

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

Sorry -> 'Unlawfull Non-Citizen' is synonymous with 'Illegal entrant'

They don't mean the exact same thing, which is precisely why the Migration Act was amended.

so, the boat illegals are illegal when they arrive, the plane illegals become illegal some time after ?

we can vet the plane illegals at less cost and more safely.

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:21am:

That's correct.

Not "illegals", and not "illegal immigrant".

Nope they arrive legally (EG. with a Visa as Lawful non-citizens) and then overstay their visa conditions and hence become unlawfull non-citizens (AKA "illegals") . Big difference GPC. :-?

But they dont enter australia until they are granted visas.

SOB

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Correct.

Extremely important in law.

Which is precisely why the Act was amended.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Correct.

Extremely important in law.

Which is precisely why the Act was amended.

They changed the name but not the definition

If you want to be accurate then why aren't you calling them Alien as per UN Refugee Convention

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Correct.

Extremely important in law.

Which is precisely why the Act was amended.

They changed the name but not the definition

If you want to be accurate then why aren't you calling them Alien as per UN Refugee Convention

I have no problem calling them aliens: that's exactly what they are.

We've been through this Maqqa: nobody in the entire world would argue that they are not aliens.

Tell me one person who has ever said that they are not aliens?

I repeat Maqqa: they ARE aliens. Absolutely no doubt about it. Aliens.

Now, what's your point? :-/

Do you have a point, or is it just that you don't understand what an "alien" is?

Alien: A foreigner, esp. one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living (foreigner - stranger).

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:37am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Correct.

Extremely important in law.

Which is precisely why the Act was amended.

They changed the name but not the definition

If you want to be accurate then why aren't you calling them Alien as per UN Refugee Convention

Then I expect you to support that conviction when someone uses the terms asylum seeker or refugee

Unless they've been accepted - they are aliens

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Correct.

Extremely important in law.

Which is precisely why the Act was amended.

Synonyms:

illegal - illicit - illegitimate - lawless - wrongful

un·law·ful ( n-lô f l). adj. 1. Not lawful; illegal

Consequences of being unlawful

Unlawful non-citizens have no entitlement to remain in Australia and are expected to depart. Where unlawful non-citizens refuse to leave Australia voluntarily, they may be detained and removed from Australia at the earliest practicable opportunity.

Seems no one know what the f to call 'em???

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:46am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:37am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Correct.

Extremely important in law.

Which is precisely why the Act was amended.

They changed the name but not the definition

If you want to be accurate then why aren't you calling them Alien as per UN Refugee Convention

Then I expect you to support that conviction when someone uses the terms asylum seeker or refugee

Unless they've been accepted - they are aliens

Yes. And it is not illegal to be an alien

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

Yes. And it is not illegal to be an alien

Nope

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:46am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:37am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Correct.

Extremely important in law.

Which is precisely why the Act was amended.

They changed the name but not the definition

If you want to be accurate then why aren't you calling them Alien as per UN Refugee Convention

Then I expect you to support that conviction when someone uses the terms asylum seeker or refugee

Unless they've been accepted - they are aliens

Yes. And it is not illegal to be an alien

But it is impossible to be un-lawful, without being illegal.

:D

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Yes. Unlawful. Not illegal.

There is a difference.

Under the Refugee Convention to which we are a party:

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#illegals

That is why there is nothinl illegal about being an unlawful non-citizen as it is described in teh Act

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:46am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:37am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Correct.

Extremely important in law.

Which is precisely why the Act was amended.

They changed the name but not the definition

If you want to be accurate then why aren't you calling them Alien as per UN Refugee Convention

Then I expect you to support that conviction when someone uses the terms asylum seeker or refugee

Unless they've been accepted - they are aliens

Yes. And it is not illegal to be an alien

But it is impossible to be un-lawful, without being illegal.

:D

No it isn't impossible to be un-lawful, without being illegal.. The words have two very distinct meanings in law. They do not mean the same thing

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:21am:

That's correct.

Not "illegals", and not "illegal immigrant".

Nope they arrive legally (EG. with a Visa as Lawful non-citizens) and then overstay their visa conditions and hence become unlawfull non-citizens (AKA "illegals") . Big difference GPC. :-?

But they dont enter australia until they are granted visas.

SOB

That's the point of difference Borg. They (plane arrivals) enter Australia legally. Their bonafides are subject to screening. Boat arrivals aren't.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

Sorry -> 'Unlawfull Non-Citizen' is synonymous with 'Illegal entrant'

They don't mean the exact same thing, which is precisely why the Migration Act was amended.

But they do according to the Migration Act.

It states

Quote:

14 (2) To avoid doubt, a non-citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen

They are the same which is the issue you raised. (Refer your Reply #128

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:45pm:

No, not illegal.

Show us where it says in the current legislation that asylum seekers, today, are illegal.

Waiting ...

So I guess your are wrong GPC?

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:46am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:37am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Correct.

Extremely important in law.

Which is precisely why the Act was amended.

They changed the name but not the definition

If you want to be accurate then why aren't you calling them Alien as per UN Refugee Convention

Then I expect you to support that conviction when someone uses the terms asylum seeker or refugee

Unless they've been accepted - they are aliens

Absolutely.

How could anyone possibly argue otherwise?

Who is saying anything to the contrary Maqqa?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:21am:

That's correct.

Not "illegals", and not "illegal immigrant".

Nope they arrive legally (EG. with a Visa as Lawful non-citizens) and then overstay their visa conditions and hence become unlawfull non-citizens (AKA "illegals") . Big difference GPC. :-?

But they dont enter australia until they are granted visas.

SOB

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:43am:

Sorry -> 'Unlawfull Non-Citizen' is synonymous with 'Illegal entrant'

They don't mean the exact same thing, which is precisely why the Migration Act was amended.

But they do according to the Migration Act.

It states

Quote:

They are the same which is the issue you raised. (Refer your Reply #128

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:45pm:

No, not illegal.

Show us where it says in the current legislation that asylum seekers, today, are illegal.

Waiting ...

So I guess your are wrong GPC?

No. Grerggery is absolutely correct.

You seem to have very poor comprehension skills. The section you just quoted states very clearly that
what was deemed illegal prior to 1 September 1994, is now not illegal.

What was an "illegal entrant" is now an unlawful non-citizen.

Not illegal

Quote:

And this is consistent with our obligations under the Refugee Convention:

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#illegals

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Friyay don't be like maqqa; don't be a dummy. Asylum seekers are only unlawfull citizens if their application for a protection visa is denied. But when a person arrives in the country and applies for asylum they are in effect applying for a protection visa; which is perfectly legal and the person is NOT CLASSIFIED as an unlawful citizen.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

So I guess your are wrong GPC?

It was a name change

The meaning stayed the same

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

But they do according to the Migration Act.

It states

Quote:

They are the same which is the issue you raised. (Refer your Reply #128

LOL ;D

It says "To avoid doubt" and yet you still get it wrong.

They mean different things, which is exactly why that amendment was made.

Quote:

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#illegals

Applying for protection onshore is not a means of “jumping the queue” or bypassing the “proper” process of applying for protection. In fact, applying onshore is the standard procedure for seeking protection. According to the definition in the UN Refugee Convention, refugees are persons who are outside their country of origin. This means that you cannot apply for refugee status if you are inside your own country

How Smacking misleading is the refugee council

Yes - you need to be in another country to claim refugee

But what's the position when you are country shopping and skipped all the other countries only to specifically target a country to claim asylum

There's 10 different countries between Sri Lanka and Australia that they could have applied

Australia just passed a Bill taking Australia from the Migration Zone so that these illegal aliens do not queue jump

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

All i did was quote the dictionary and the immigration fact sheet on un-lawful non-citizens.

"should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum"

Not - MUST not or CAN not or SHALL not, but should not - hmmmmmmmm

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

So I guess your are wrong GPC?

It was a name change

The meaning stayed the same

Ha ha ha!!!

Give up you idiot.

It is not illegal to seek asylum.

And the Refugee Convention specifically reinforces this point:

The UNHCR states that refugee status exists prior to and independent of the recognition of this status by member countries.
http://www.safecom.org.au/senate-inquiry.htm

At no stage in the asylum seeking process is a bona-fide asylum seeker doing anything "illegal".

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

So I guess your are wrong GPC?

It was a name change

The meaning stayed the same

where have I ever said it was??

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

::)

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/onshore/866/

To be granted a Protection visa you will need to be found to be owed protection in Australia, because you are a refugee as defined by the Refugees Convention, or because you meet the complementary protection criteria

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Omg dummy again getting confused ;D.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

They certainly are aliens, but they're not illegal.

You'll get it right one day Maqqa.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Ha ha ha!!!

It is not illegal to seek asylum.

And the Refugee Convention specifically reinforces this point:

The UNHCR states that refugee status exists prior to and independent of the recognition of this status by member countries.
http://www.safecom.org.au/senate-inquiry.htm

At no stage in the asylum seeking process is a bona-fide asylum seeker doing anything "illegal".

where have I ever said it was??

You just like to call them illegals even though you understand there is nothing illegal about what they have done?

Illegals are doing nothing illegal????

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

They certainly are aliens, but they're not illegal.

You'll get it right one day Maqqa.

Quote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal%20alien

illegal alien
noun
1.
a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

yeah you'll get it right one day pecker

Dnarever wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

where have I ever said it was??

You just like to call them illegals even though you understand there is nothing illegal about what they have done?

Illegals are doing nothing illegal????

And what is it you think they've done dna?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

They certainly are aliens, but they're not illegal.

You'll get it right one day Maqqa.

Hopefully he'll also one day understand that asylum seekers apply for protection visas when they seek refugee status in Australia. And as a result anyone applying for asylum seeker status is guaranteed protection under the refugee convention, as per the migration act, until either their claim is approved or denied. Approve means they get protectionvisa. Denied means they become unlawful citizens and can be deported.

Is it illegal to pay criminals (people smugglers) thousands of dollars to 'jump the queue' and enter Australia ahead of thousands of refugees waiting years to get here through the proper channels?

If the answer is "no" would it then be illegal if I paid a criminal to rob a bank for me?

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

They certainly are aliens, but they're not illegal.

You'll get it right one day Maqqa.

[quote]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal%20alien

illegal alien
noun
1.
a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

yeah you'll get it right one day pecker[/quote]

I get it right every day when I deal with you.

Today is no different.

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

Sorry old chum.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

They certainly are aliens, but they're not illegal.

You'll get it right one day Maqqa.

Migration Act 1858 section 36 - enough said

Carl D wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

What queue? And under the refugee convention the way a person comes into the country bares no significance. So stfu

“should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum”

So they should be considered illegal before they claim asylum. No one knows his or her intention before the claim for asylum is made.

So boats entering Australian waters, contain illegal entrants, until asylum is claimed.

:D

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

They certainly are aliens, but they're not illegal.

You'll get it right one day Maqqa.

[quote]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal%20alien

illegal alien
noun
1.
a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

yeah you'll get it right one day pecker

I get it right every day when I deal with you.

Today is no different.

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

Sorry old chum.[/quote]

If they have been granted the status of and given the protection as an asylum seeker then they are a refugee - therefore they are not an illegal alien

before that - they are an illegal alien

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

They certainly are aliens, but they're not illegal.

You'll get it right one day Maqqa.

Migration Act 1858 section 36 - enough said

I'm gla you know the section. Finally dummy learnt something!!!

Honestly - I'm surprised you people have the stamina to keep going round and round in circles for months over this issue and really getting nowhere.

Bottom line (to me) is... we'll just have to wait and see what future Prime Minister Tony Abbott can do to solve the problem.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

They certainly are aliens, but they're not illegal.

You'll get it right one day Maqqa.

[quote]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal%20alien

illegal alien
noun
1.
a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

yeah you'll get it right one day pecker

I get it right every day when I deal with you.

Today is no different.

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

Sorry old chum.

If they have been granted the status of and given the protection as an asylum seeker then they are a refugee - therefore they are not an illegal alien

before that - they are an illegal alien[/quote]

Dummy still utterly confused :(

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

They certainly are aliens, but they're not illegal.

You'll get it right one day Maqqa.

Migration Act 1858 section 36 - enough said

I'm gla you know the section. Finally dummy learnt something!!!

And it's given to refugees - not people who have just put in an application for asylum

Carl D wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

What problem?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

They certainly are aliens, but they're not illegal.

You'll get it right one day Maqqa.

[quote]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal%20alien

illegal alien
noun
1.
a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

yeah you'll get it right one day pecker

I get it right every day when I deal with you.

Today is no different.

Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens.

Sorry old chum.

If they have been granted the status of and given the protection as an asylum seeker then they are a refugee - therefore they are not an illegal alien

before that - they are an illegal alien

Dummy still utterly confused :([/quote]

Because you said so ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

Carl D wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

What problem?

about 33,000+ problems since 2007

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

If they have been granted the status of and given the protection as an asylum seeker then they are a refugee - therefore they are not an illegal alien

before that - they are an illegal alien

Oh Maqqa, you're so confused it's not funny anymore.

One does not have to be "granted the status of" an asylum seeker.

One simply makes the claim, and then they become an asylum seeker.

Once again you're confusing the terms "asylum seeker" and "refugee". They aren't the same Maqqa.

There is no application form or approval process to become an asylum seeker.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

Carl D wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

What queue? And under the refugee convention the way a person comes into the country bares no significance. So stfu

Last time I looked this was a public forum where EVERYONE has a right to an opinion so I would kindly appreciate you not telling me or anyone else to STFU.

Judging by the increasing 'anger' in your posts lately my money is on you being one of these 'refugee advocates' with your snout in the taxpayer funded trough and you're worried about your little 'gravy train' getting derailed after the Federal election in September.

Can't happen soon enough for me (and most of Australia, I'm sure).

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

If they have been granted the status of and given the protection as an asylum seeker then they are a refugee - therefore they are not an illegal alien

before that - they are an illegal alien

He is just a dummy

Carl D wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

Carl D wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:13pm:

What queue? And under the refugee convention the way a person comes into the country bares no significance. So stfu

Yes yes gravy train. ;D ;D. Another dummy without a clue

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

If they have been granted the status of and given the protection as an asylum seeker then they are a refugee - therefore they are not an illegal alien

before that - they are an illegal alien

He is just a dummy

Of unbelievable proportions.

It's hard to believe that an adult can't understand the difference between:

- refugee and asylum seeker
- alien and illegal alien
- illegal and unlawful

To think that he actually believes that one has to be "granted the status of" asylum seeker is, quite frankly, unbelievable.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

One does not have to be "granted the status of" an asylum seeker.

One simply makes the claim, and then they become an asylum seeker.

One simple has to make a claim, and then they become.......??

REALLY!!??

Lets apply this concept of "claim therefore for you are" concept

So if I claimed that you are an idiot - then you are

So if I claimed you are a moron - then you are

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

:-/

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

One does not have to be "granted the status of" an asylum seeker.

One simply makes the claim, and then they become an asylum seeker.

One simple has to make a claim, and then they become.......??

REALLY!!??

Yes, that's 100% correct Maqqa.

One simply makes the claim that they are seeking asylum, and they become an asylum seeker.

Did you honestly think there was an application form? ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

If they have been granted the status of and given the protection as an asylum seeker then they are a refugee - therefore they are not an illegal alien

before that - they are an illegal alien

He is just a dummy

It is unbelievable

I tried to explain it to you and you still don't get it

Sad for you

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

One does not have to be "granted the status of" an asylum seeker.

One simply makes the claim, and then they become an asylum seeker.

One simple has to make a claim, and then they become.......??

REALLY!!??

Yes, that's 100% correct Maqqa.

One simply makes the claim that they are seeking asylum, and they become an asylum seeker.

Did you honestly think there was an application form? ;D

That would be section 28-51

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

If they have been granted the status of and given the protection as an asylum seeker then they are a refugee - therefore they are not an illegal alien

before that - they are an illegal alien

He is just a dummy

It is unbelievable

I tried to explain it to you and you still don't get it

Sad for you

Each time you do I fall into intense laughter. Can you explain again pls? ;D

Quote:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#e

Applications for protection visas are assessed by trained departmental officers.

According to you - no application is needed

You just turn up and make a verbal claim

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:36pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

One does not have to be "granted the status of" an asylum seeker.

One simply makes the claim, and then they become an asylum seeker.

One simple has to make a claim, and then they become.......??

REALLY!!??

Yes, that's 100% correct Maqqa.

One simply makes the claim that they are seeking asylum, and they become an asylum seeker.

Did you honestly think there was an application form? ;D

That would be section 28-51

LOL ;D

No Maqqa, wrong again.

Those sections don't deal with applying to become an asylum seeker (because there is no such application): those sections deal with applying for visas.

There is no application form needed to become an asylum seeker.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

Each time you do I fall into intense laughter. Can you explain again pls? ;D

I must admit, it is getting quite funny now.

He actually believes that one must apply to become an asylum seeker.

This boy cracks me up ;D

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

:-/

These asylum seeker threads remind me of a line from the 1970 hit single by The Temptations called "Ball of Confusion (That's What the World Is Today)"

"So, round and around and around we go."

Don't worry though... I'm sure there will be plenty of shopping trolley collection work available for alevine and the rest of the refugee advocates once they're out of a job when Prime Minister Abbott sorts things out. :)

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Quote:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61protection.htm#e

Applications for protection visas are assessed by trained departmental officers.

According to you - no application is needed

You just turn up and make a verbal claim

Yes, and I'm 100% correct: one just makes the claim for asylum (verbally) and one becomes an asylum seeker.

Then, an asylum seeker needs to apply for a protection visa.

This is basic stuff Maqqa.

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1361711963 Message started by Maqqa on Feb 24^th, 2013 at 11:19pm