Wonder why all of the below has and was ignored by the ABC and the greens??

Hi Larry,

The reason i am messaging you is in relation to the riots on Manus Islands.

Your article about Berati was spot on. Im going to list in point form a few things about the day the rioting happened.

* Berati was the main instigator
* Illegals from iran make up about 90% of the detainees there and stick together. This means they can bully, rape and attack the smaller groups within the camp.
* Berati was caught on a number of occasions raping and abusing boys and men within the camp.
* Berati and his gang of thugs would always antagonise the local guards and police.
* On the day of the riot the mob had amassed in the yard and were giving it to the locals & guards.
* One of the detainees mooned a local police officer through the fence and was shot in the Arse.
* Once the mob started throwing condoms at the guards and police, all hell broke loose.
*All non local staff were evacuated from the camp as it is against the law for them to get physical with the detainees.
*The fence was knocked down and the local guards and police charged the compound. Uniforms were handed out to locals to join in the melee. Basically if you were black you got a shirt and were told to run in and fight.
* Berati was targeted. They spotted him and went after him. He was never getting out alive, much to the relief of the locals and the detainees that had been raped by the scumbag.
* There was another instigator i'm unsure what his name was, but he was a Midget from Iran. When the locals caught him, they held him up like a trophy and paraded him around the yard.

That is the bulk of exciting stuff that happened during the riots.

Some other interesting points from inside the camps:

* Everyone has internet access and uses facebook.
* They join groups that have been set up by greenies and do gooders.
* On many occasions these greenies have been feeding the detainees information about what to do and how to get resettles in Aus.
* More than once people have posted instructions to burn the camps down, and that if there are no camps then they will have to be resettled in Aus.
* No one actually goes on Hunger strike, its all a big show. One overweight inmate went on hunger strike but actually put on weight. His mates were sneaking him food from the mess hall.
* If a detainee decides to go back home. We send them back with $2-3k american for their troubles.
* Many of the boats that did come started off with women and children as well as men. They arrived in Aus with just Men on board. Apparently the women and children were raped, killed and thrown overboard. Common Occurrance.

I hope this has been enlightening, i'm sure you already knew most of this. Have a great day and keep up the good work.

Kind Regards
(withheld)

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/5/b/5/6/1264247144596627768clapping_hands.jpg.svg.med.png

And the things is people like this are allowed into our society and Progs are the reason they are.  :D :D :D

Nauru-BEFORE.jpg -    ......What Australian taxpayers paid for, for the comfort of 'asylum seekers' in Nauru.

---

Nauru-BEFORE.jpg -    ......What Australian taxpayers paid for, on Nauru.   !!!!

---

Quote:

* Many of the boats that did come started off with women and children as well as men. They arrived in Aus with just Men on board. Apparently the women and children were raped, killed and thrown overboard. Common Occurrance.

If that's true, then it's utterly horrendous. And the other stuff.

I know South East Asian pirates working out of Thailand used to wait for Chinese and Vietnamese refugee boat people ~ boarding their boats, raping the women, and then slaughtering everyone.

Abbott needs to be told about this situation if he hasn't already. These are people from another century when such practices were commonplace and considered compensation for ones troubles.

woof woof wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

* Illegals from iran make up about ...

Lost all credibility, right there.

Nothing illegal about seeking asylum.

What else you got?

"Every man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind,
Therefore send not to know for whom Manus riots....
It riots for THEE!"

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got?

;D

It makes it so much easier for you, doesn't it?

These Muslim pigs at Manus Island are exactly the type who are right now butchering with medieval savagery everyone they can get their hands on as they sweep down towards Baghdad.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got?

Is it illegal to pay someone to smuggle you across Australia's border, without a visa (and in some cases no ID at all)?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:29pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? ;D It makes it so much easier for you, doesn't it?

Indeed.

Nothing exposes an ignorant, "brain"washed bigot quicker than the use of the term "illegals".

No need for IQ tests or brain scans: if they say "illegals", you can be guaranteed they're bordering on the mentally retarded.

So easy.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:33pm:

Indeed. Nothing exposes an ignorant, "brain"washed bigot quicker than the use of the term "illegals". No need for IQ tests or brain scans: if they say "illegals", you can be guaranteed they're bordering on the mentally retarded. So easy.

The term 'illegals' with reference to these boat-people 'irregular migrants' is being used routinely by our politicians in parliament.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:33pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:29pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? ;D It makes it so much easier for you, doesn't it? Indeed. Nothing exposes an ignorant, "brain"washed bigot quicker than the use of the term "illegals". No need for IQ tests or brain scans: if they say "illegals", you can be guaranteed they're bordering on the mentally retarded. So easy. The term 'illegals' with reference to these boat-people 'irregular migrants' is being used routinely by our politicians in parliament.

Thank you for proving my point.

It just gets easier and easier for me.

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? Is it illegal to pay someone to smuggle you across Australia's border, without a visa (and in some cases no ID at all)?

:-/

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:31pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? Is it illegal to pay someone to smuggle you across Australia's border, without a visa (and in some cases no ID at all)? :-/

If it is, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of which Act says that it is illegal.

I'm sure you'll also be able to point us to the relevant Section that states they are referred to as "illegals".

So, over to you then ...

illegal or legal its neither here nor there, but old mate knuckles has no commentary on the reported activities of the filth that comes ashore on the boats

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:54pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:50pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:31pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? Is it illegal to pay someone to smuggle you across Australia's border, without a visa (and in some cases no ID at all)? :-/ If it is, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of which Act says that it is illegal. I'm sure you'll also be able to point us to the relevant Section that states they are referred to as "illegals". So, over to you then ...

So you don't know, OK.

Anyone?

Is it illegal to cross Australia's border with no visa?

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 9:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:54pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:50pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:31pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? Is it illegal to pay someone to smuggle you across Australia's border, without a visa (and in some cases no ID at all)? :-/ If it is, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of which Act says that it is illegal. I'm sure you'll also be able to point us to the relevant Section that states they are referred to as "illegals". So, over to you then ... So you don't know, OK. Anyone? Is it illegal to cross Australia's border with no visa?

LOL

Begging for help now.  This will be good.

Classic   ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 9:04pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 9:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:54pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:50pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:31pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? Is it illegal to pay someone to smuggle you across Australia's border, without a visa (and in some cases no ID at all)? :-/ If it is, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of which Act says that it is illegal. I'm sure you'll also be able to point us to the relevant Section that states they are referred to as "illegals". So, over to you then ... So you don't know, OK. Anyone? Is it illegal to cross Australia's border with no visa? LOL Begging for help now.  This will be good. Classic   ;D

Can't be buggered looking. Not begging, just asking.

woof woof wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

Wonder why all of the below has and was ignored by the ABC and the greens?? Hi Larry, The reason i am messaging you is in relation to the riots on Manus Islands. Your article about Berati was spot on. Im going to list in point form a few things about the day the rioting happened. * Berati was the main instigator * Illegals from iran make up about 90% of the detainees there and stick together. This means they can bully, rape and attack the smaller groups within the camp. * Berati was caught on a number of occasions raping and abusing boys and men within the camp. * Berati and his gang of thugs would always antagonise the local guards and police. * On the day of the riot the mob had amassed in the yard and were giving it to the locals & guards. * One of the detainees mooned a local police officer through the fence and was shot in the Arse. * Once the mob started throwing condoms at the guards and police, all hell broke loose. *All non local staff were evacuated from the camp as it is against the law for them to get physical with the detainees. *The fence was knocked down and the local guards and police charged the compound. Uniforms were handed out to locals to join in the melee. Basically if you were black you got a shirt and were told to run in and fight. * Berati was targeted. They spotted him and went after him. He was never getting out alive, much to the relief of the locals and the detainees that had been raped by the scumbag. * There was another instigator i'm unsure what his name was, but he was a Midget from Iran. When the locals caught him, they held him up like a trophy and paraded him around the yard. That is the bulk of exciting stuff that happened during the riots. Some other interesting points from inside the camps: * Everyone has internet access and uses facebook. * They join groups that have been set up by greenies and do gooders. * On many occasions these greenies have been feeding the detainees information about what to do and how to get resettles in Aus. * More than once people have posted instructions to burn the camps down, and that if there are no camps then they will have to be resettled in Aus. * No one actually goes on Hunger strike, its all a big show. One overweight inmate went on hunger strike but actually put on weight. His mates were sneaking him food from the mess hall. * If a detainee decides to go back home. We send them back with $2-3k american for their troubles. * Many of the boats that did come started off with women and children as well as men. They arrived in Aus with just Men on board. Apparently the women and children were raped, killed and thrown overboard. Common Occurrance. I hope this has been enlightening, i'm sure you already knew most of this. Have a great day and keep up the good work. Kind Regards (withheld)

Whats your link or reference?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:36pm:

Indeed. Nothing exposes an ignorant, "brain"washed bigot quicker than the use of the term "illegals". No need for IQ tests or brain scans: if they say "illegals", you can be guaranteed they're bordering on the mentally retarded. So easy. Thank you for proving my point. It just gets easier and easier for me.

Don't be such a stickler for weasel-words and PC terminology.

Even the Labor Opposition is quite happy to allow the term 'Illegals' to be used in the House during discussions.

And it's the correct term to use.

The proof? They don't ask the Australian Embassy in Djakarta for asylum ... 

Happy now? :P

woof woof wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

Wonder why all of the below has and was ignored by the ABC and the greens?? Hi Larry, The reason i am messaging you is in relation to the riots on Manus Islands. Your article about Berati was spot on. Im going to list in point form a few things about the day the rioting happened. * Berati was the main instigator * Illegals from iran make up about 90% of the detainees there and stick together. This means they can bully, rape and attack the smaller groups within the camp. * Berati was caught on a number of occasions raping and abusing boys and men within the camp. * Berati and his gang of thugs would always antagonise the local guards and police. * On the day of the riot the mob had amassed in the yard and were giving it to the locals & guards. * One of the detainees mooned a local police officer through the fence and was shot in the Arse. * Once the mob started throwing condoms at the guards and police, all hell broke loose. *All non local staff were evacuated from the camp as it is against the law for them to get physical with the detainees. *The fence was knocked down and the local guards and police charged the compound. Uniforms were handed out to locals to join in the melee. Basically if you were black you got a shirt and were told to run in and fight. * Berati was targeted. They spotted him and went after him. He was never getting out alive, much to the relief of the locals and the detainees that had been raped by the scumbag. * There was another instigator i'm unsure what his name was, but he was a Midget from Iran. When the locals caught him, they held him up like a trophy and paraded him around the yard. That is the bulk of exciting stuff that happened during the riots. Some other interesting points from inside the camps: * Everyone has internet access and uses facebook. * They join groups that have been set up by greenies and do gooders. * On many occasions these greenies have been feeding the detainees information about what to do and how to get resettles in Aus. * More than once people have posted instructions to burn the camps down, and that if there are no camps then they will have to be resettled in Aus. * No one actually goes on Hunger strike, its all a big show. One overweight inmate went on hunger strike but actually put on weight. His mates were sneaking him food from the mess hall. * If a detainee decides to go back home. We send them back with $2-3k american for their troubles. * Many of the boats that did come started off with women and children as well as men. They arrived in Aus with just Men on board. Apparently the women and children were raped, killed and thrown overboard. Common Occurrance. I hope this has been enlightening, i'm sure you already knew most of this. Have a great day and keep up the good work. Kind Regards (withheld)

the ABC and Greens often ignore unfounded comments by anonymous peoples ..... why do you think they ignored it?

Please tell me the 'Larry' the letter is addressing  is Larry Pickering?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 7:50pm:

And the things is people like this are allowed into our society and Progs are the reason they are.  :D :D :D

there's one born every minute ....

Hi Grendel  :-* :-* :-* :-*

Well, I didn't get passed this:


Quote:

* Berati was the main instigator..

Evidence/Link?

Aussie wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 9:23pm:

Well, I didn't get passed this: Quote: * Berati was the main instigator.. Evidence/Link?

Were you one of the clowns claiming Aussie sailers tortured asylum seekers without "Evidence/Link"?

PS the search function on this forum sucks, more than once I have been frustrated in attempting to find past contradictions and hypocrisy from the frothing at the mouth sandalistas.

John Smith wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 9:16pm:

Please tell me the 'Larry' the letter is addressing  is Larry Pickering?

Why, yes it is.

Aussie wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 9:23pm:

Well, I didn't get passed this: Quote: * Berati was the main instigator.. Evidence/Link?

Link?

If the country shoppers stayed home it wouldn't have happened, you don't need a link!!

The link I was after was the one which evidences this about the bloke, Berati, who was allegedly murdered:


Quote:

Berati was the main instigator..

Aussie wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

The link I was after was the one which evidences this about the bloke, Berati, who was allegedly murdered: Quote: Berati was the main instigator..

Berati is the root cause, you can stop looking  ;)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 9:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 9:16pm: Please tell me the 'Larry' the letter is addressing  is Larry Pickering? Why, yes it is.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
how can people be sooooo dumb

;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 11:11pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 9:35pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 9:16pm: Please tell me the 'Larry' the letter is addressing  is Larry Pickering? Why, yes it is. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D how can people be sooooo dumb ;D ;D ;D

I dunno, but they seem to manage it without much trouble.

Pickering's correspondents:

"A bit off topic. Kudos to Paul Barry on Media Watch. He gave the ABC (news in particular) and those weenies at Fairfax a huge serve over their non-reporting of Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption".

Selective reporting is censorship by omission. No wonder the pinkos who run the ABC have shied away from the Manus Island story.

********

"Larry, thank you for sharing this information. We must all understand that we are at war and must use every avenue to defeat islam. There must be no compromise and no surrender. We must; persuade our Government to stop islamic immigration, push to deport all muslims who have broken our laws, fight to stop mosque building and close current mosques, push back against halal and creeping sharia.

The Q Society is fighting hard and effectively to defeat islam in Australia, please support them. See http://www.qsociety.org.au/ or https://www.facebook.com/FoQSA for details".

Our politicians are as aware as anyone of the hazards of continuing a Muslim immigration program that has the very real potential to become a growing tumour within the body of our national life.

They simply don't have the political guts to nip this cancer in the bud.

Each government leaves this surgery for some future government to perform when the situation will become a critical emergency.

As an example of the feeble character of our politicians, there's no better one than is highlighted by this story:

"More good news. Scott Morrison is really proving to be a very effective Immigration Minister.

It would seem the 60 year old boss and founder of the Rebels Motorcycle Gang went on a holiday to his native Malta. The guy who has been a resident in Australia for 45 years but never became a citizen and somehow managed to become a multi-millionaire, has had somewhat a sad ending to his latest holiday - Morrison has cancelled his Visa, he isn't coming back. Good riddance arsehole!"

The visa-freeze is temporary of course. As soon as the sob-sisters and self-defeatists of the Labor Party get in ~ his visa will be restored to him. 

Labor Parties everywhere are always happy to flirt with the worst elements in society if it means helping to push them across the line at election times.




 

Muslims would appear a lot safer on manus Island than at home in Iraq or Syria where their muslim brothers seem to be slaying them in droves.

I would suggest we open Manus as a tourist destination for muslims looking to escape the horror of living with other muslims.

aquascoot wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 8:03am:

Muslims would appear a lot safer on manus Island than at home in Iraq or Syria where their muslim brothers seem to be slaying them in droves. I would suggest we open Manus as a tourist destination for muslims looking to escape the horror of living with other muslims.

You do but jest of course.  anus Island would simply compress them together in a more heated environment.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

aquascoot wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 8:03am: Muslims would appear a lot safer on manus Island than at home in Iraq or Syria where their muslim brothers seem to be slaying them in droves. I would suggest we open Manus as a tourist destination for muslims looking to escape the horror of living with other muslims. You do but jest of course.  anus Island would simply compress them together in a more heated environment.

Rich tapestry of multi-culti.
I would have the sunni's and the Shiites in the same dormitories and they can learn "conflict resolution"

aquascoot wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

Rich tapestry of multi-culti. I would have the sunni's and the Shiites in the same dormitories and they can learn "conflict resolution"

;D ;D ;D

We'll chuck in a couple of pro bono lawyers to keep an eye out for anything that can be used to sue the government for. Just to make things more interesting.

In fact, we haven't seen the  anus Island facas hit the Compensation Courts yet, have we? That'll be a doozy.

I hope it does get to court, and the full story ~ (the one the ABC doesn't want us to know) ~ will be exposed for all to see.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 9:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:36pm: Indeed. Nothing exposes an ignorant, "brain"washed bigot quicker than the use of the term "illegals". No need for IQ tests or brain scans: if they say "illegals", you can be guaranteed they're bordering on the mentally retarded. So easy. Thank you for proving my point. It just gets easier and easier for me. Don't be such a stickler for weasel-words and PC terminology. Even the Labor Opposition is quite happy to allow the term 'Illegals' to be used in the House during discussions. And it's the correct term to use. The proof? They don't ask the Australian Embassy in Djakarta for asylum ...  Happy now? :P

No, it's not the correct term to use.

FriYaY failed the challenge - maybe you can give it a try:

If it is the correct term to use, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of which Act says that it is illegal.

I'm sure you'll also be able to point us to the relevant Section that states they are referred to as "illegals".

So, over to you then.  which Act, and which section?  What is the exact offence?

He's trolling you herb.

;) ;) ;).

He gets half a woody every time some says illegal or country shopper.

aquascoot wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

He's trolling you herb. ;) ;) ;). He gets half a woody every time some says illegal or country shopper.

I love exposing the losers in this forum (too easy). 

If it is the correct term to use, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of which Act says that it is illegal.

Next!

aquascoot wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

He's trolling you herb. ;) ;) ;). He gets half a woody every time some says illegal or country shopper.

He's also correct, but don't let that bother you...

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 9:53am:

aquascoot wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 9:49am: He's trolling you herb. ;) ;) ;). He gets half a woody every time some says illegal or country shopper. I love exposing the losers in this forum (too easy).  If it is the correct term to use, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of which Act says that it is illegal. Next!

Please quote the section and act where it says that criticising pedants is illegal

aquascoot wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 10:27am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 9:53am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 9:49am: He's trolling you herb. ;) ;) ;). He gets half a woody every time some says illegal or country shopper. I love exposing the losers in this forum (too easy).  If it is the correct term to use, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of which Act says that it is illegal. Next! Please quote the section and act where it says that criticising pedants is illegal

Nobody has ever said that "criticising pedants is illegal" (but you knew that already).

So, if "illegals" is the correct term to use, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of what Act says that it is illegal to seek asylum.

Cheers.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 10:55am:

aquascoot wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 10:27am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 9:53am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 9:49am: He's trolling you herb. ;) ;) ;). He gets half a woody every time some says illegal or country shopper. I love exposing the losers in this forum (too easy).  If it is the correct term to use, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of which Act says that it is illegal. Next! Please quote the section and act where it says that criticising pedants is illegal Nobody has ever said that "criticising pedants is illegal" (but you knew that already). So, if "illegals" is the correct term to use, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of what Act says that it is illegal to seek asylum. Cheers.

Its not illegal to eat dog feaces but its still disgusting.
And queue jumping is unaustralian and we are disgusted by it.
Mr Morrison has enforced good community standards and ensured that "fairness" is applied and queue jumpers aren't rewarded.
What a tall glass of water he is

aquascoot wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 11:16am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 10:55am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 10:27am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 9:53am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 9:49am: He's trolling you herb. ;) ;) ;). He gets half a woody every time some says illegal or country shopper. I love exposing the losers in this forum (too easy).  If it is the correct term to use, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of which Act says that it is illegal. Next! Please quote the section and act where it says that criticising pedants is illegal Nobody has ever said that "criticising pedants is illegal" (but you knew that already). So, if "illegals" is the correct term to use, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of what Act says that it is illegal to seek asylum. Cheers. Its not illegal to eat dog feaces but its still disgusting.

Seeking asylum is "disgusting" now?

Oh how I love exposing the dregs of our society on this forum.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 10:55am:

So, if "illegals" is the correct term to use, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of what Act says that it is illegal to seek asylum.

Well, if it helps Gregg, here's s14 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth):
    (1)  A non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen is an unlawful non-citizen.

lawful non citizen is defined in s13 as
     (1)  A non-citizen in the migration zone who holds a visa that is in effect is a lawful non-citizen.

So, while no penalties (other than liability to detention and deportation) are imposed, such immigrants would prima facie be unlawful non-citizens .

Now, "unlawful" is quite close in meaning to "illegal". Would you prefer we called them unlawful immigrants? What's your problem?

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 11:32am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 10:55am: So, if "illegals" is the correct term to use, I'm sure you will tell us all exactly what Section of what Act says that it is illegal to seek asylum. Well, if it helps Gregg, here's s14 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth):     (1)  A non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen is an unlawful non-citizen. lawful non citizen is defined in s13 as      (1)  A non-citizen in the migration zone who holds a visa that is in effect is a lawful non-citizen. So, while no penalties (other than liability to detention and deportation) are imposed, such immigrants would prima facie be unlawful non-citizens . Now, "unlawful" is quite close in meaning to "illegal". Would you prefer we called them unlawful immigrants? What's your problem?

Would you like to try again?

You've failed miserably on your first attempt.

Well nobody's saying it's illegal to seek asylum per se. What we're talking about here is the manner of doing so, correct? If people choose to seek asylum via the rickety boat method, then they become UNC's on arrival (otherwise known as illegals). If they choose to seek asylum the lawful way, then hey presto! They're lawful non citizens (who can later become citizens just the same as anybody else).

I'm sorry, am I missing something?

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

Well nobody's saying it's illegal to seek asylum per se. What we're talking about here is the manner of doing so, correct? If people choose to seek asylum via the rickety boat method, then they become UNC's on arrival (otherwise known as illegals). If they choose to seek asylum the lawful way, then hey presto! They're lawful non citizens (who can later become citizens just the same as anybody else). I'm sorry, am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something (things, actually).

1. Why are they "otherwise known as illegals"?  They've done nothing illegal. It's absolute nonsense to use the term "illegals". Where is that term officially documented?

2. Seeking asylum "via the rickety boat method" is "the lawful way".  That is, it's one lawful way. 

3. UNCs can also "later become citizens just the same as anybody else".

1. Because they've come before having their claim processed. Ask first, then pitch up. Not the other way around.

2. Only if you're happy to wait around on Manus while your claim is processed - during which time you're a UNC.

3. Assuming they haven't been deported in the meanwhile :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 11:24am:

Oh how I love exposing the dregs of our society on this forum.

;D ;D ;D

You're a dregs magnet, Greg.

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

1. Because they've come before having their claim processed. Ask first, then pitch up. Not the other way around. 2. Only if you're happy to wait around on Manus while your claim is processed - during which time you're a UNC. 3. Assuming they haven't been deported in the meanwhile :D

;D ;D ;D ;D

you need to get out and experience the real world every now and then .....

if you had the Australian govt. and all it's resources trying to kill you and your family, would you firstly, stop to apply for asylum in New Zealand and then 2) wait  for the application to be processed? (sometimes it takes years)

or would you jump on the nearest boat going your way, wait to get somewhere safe and THEN apply

If you were dumb enough to do it the first way, the result of your application wouldn't matter as you and your whole family would be dead before you found out anyway


By the way blindfreddy .... what about those coming by plane and seeking asylum? are they also illegal?  :D :D :D :D

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

1. Because they've come before having their claim processed.

That's correct. And it's perfectly legal, because they are asylum seekers.

Once they say "I seek asylum", they are indeed asylum seekers.  Moreover, they can make that claim wherever they like: it doesn't have to be announced before they arrive in a foreign country.

However, once they have claimed asylum, they then need to have their claim for refugee status processed.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 12:52pm:

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:19pm: 1. Because they've come before having their claim processed. That's correct. And it's perfectly legal, because they are asylum seekers. Once they say "I seek asylum", they are indeed asylum seekers.  Moreover, they can make that claim wherever they like: it doesn't have to be announced before they arrive in a foreign country. However, once they have claimed asylum, they then need to have their claim for refugee status processed.

And before they say "i seek asylum" they have entered Australia illegaly.

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 12:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:52pm: BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:19pm: 1. Because they've come before having their claim processed. That's correct. And it's perfectly legal, because they are asylum seekers. Once they say "I seek asylum", they are indeed asylum seekers.  Moreover, they can make that claim wherever they like: it doesn't have to be announced before they arrive in a foreign country. However, once they have claimed asylum, they then need to have their claim for refugee status processed. And before they say "i seek asylum" they have entered Australia illegaly.

Under which Section, of which Act, is it illegal?

And, what is the actual offence?

John Smith wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 12:49pm:

if you had the Australian govt. and all it's resources trying to kill you and your family, would you firstly, stop to apply for asylum in New Zealand and then 2) wait  for the application to be processed? (sometimes it takes years) or would you jump on the nearest boat going your way, wait to get somewhere safe and THEN apply If you were dumb enough to do it the first way, the result of your application wouldn't matter as you and your whole family would be dead before you found out anyway By the way blindfreddy .... what about those coming by plane and seeking asylum? are they also illegal?

Planes - use "unlawful" , coz "illegal" upsets gregg - depends if they have visas. If yes => no. If no => yes. Ask the Migration Act.

As for your little analogy - it's quite different to the present case, because here NZ would be the first safe harbour from Aus. Naturally you'd run and bugger the consequences.

However, you're not arguing that Australia is the first safe harbour from (say) Afghanistan, are you? Once you're out of your little hellhole, you go to a safe harbour that'll have you. Then, you can sit tight and wait your turn.

Which brings us full circle: anyone who, not being a citizen, sets foot on Australian soil without a visa is an unlawful non citizen.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:05pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:52pm: BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:19pm: 1. Because they've come before having their claim processed. That's correct. And it's perfectly legal, because they are asylum seekers. Once they say "I seek asylum", they are indeed asylum seekers.  Moreover, they can make that claim wherever they like: it doesn't have to be announced before they arrive in a foreign country. However, once they have claimed asylum, they then need to have their claim for refugee status processed. And before they say "i seek asylum" they have entered Australia illegaly. Under which Section, of which Act, is it illegal? And, what is the actual offence?

LOL

It's not illegal, you can just jump on a plane, boat whatever and enter any country you want.

Said no one ever... ::)

Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".

parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".


Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country


It's never been legal to enter OZ without a visa, just as it is not "illegal" to claim asylum.


There is no actual crime, that's why the PC morons like you to use nice names.


The carriage of the "not yet" asylum seekers is a crime.

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:49pm: if you had the Australian govt. and all it's resources trying to kill you and your family, would you firstly, stop to apply for asylum in New Zealand and then 2) wait  for the application to be processed? (sometimes it takes years) or would you jump on the nearest boat going your way, wait to get somewhere safe and THEN apply If you were dumb enough to do it the first way, the result of your application wouldn't matter as you and your whole family would be dead before you found out anyway By the way blindfreddy .... what about those coming by plane and seeking asylum? are they also illegal?  Planes - use "unlawful" , coz "illegal" upsets gregg - depends if they have visas. If yes => no. If no => yes. Ask the Migration Act.

Doesn't upset me: it amuses (and confuses) me.

Why would someone use the term "illegals" to describe a group of people who have done nothing illegal?

Moreover, the Migration Act doesn't say it's illegal": quite the opposite, in fact.

Here, read it for yourself.  This is from the Migration Act 1958, section 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."

It could not be any clearer: " was an illegal entrant ... then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen".

Is this 1994 or 2014?

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".

How does it feel to hamstring your own argument while trying to make it?

Even if they are committing a crime (which you have yet to prove by the way, despite repeated requests by Greg), then they should not be punished for it as long as the later terms are met

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

It could not be any clearer: " was an illegal entrant ... then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen". Is this 1994 or 2014?

That section made a change in terminology. If you were previously called an illegal entrant, we're now calling you an unlawful non-citizen.

And, while "illegals" might not be technically correct, it's entrenched in the popular psyche. Is that such a big problem? Should they be called "unlawful"s?

Stratos wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:26pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:19pm: parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence". How does it feel to hamstring your own argument while trying to make it? Even if they are committing a crime (which you have yet to prove by the way, despite repeated requests by Greg), then they should not be punished for it as long as the later terms are met

There is no actual crime, that's why the PC nice people like you to use nice names.

But it is clearly defined in the refo convention in article 31. "Illegal entry or presence" - twice.

Act act of paying people smugglers to take you across our borders is illegal, then you get to claim asylum, which is not illegal.

All seems pretty smacking simple to me...

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:05pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:52pm: BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:19pm: 1. Because they've come before having their claim processed. That's correct. And it's perfectly legal, because they are asylum seekers. Once they say "I seek asylum", they are indeed asylum seekers.  Moreover, they can make that claim wherever they like: it doesn't have to be announced before they arrive in a foreign country. However, once they have claimed asylum, they then need to have their claim for refugee status processed. And before they say "i seek asylum" they have entered Australia illegaly. Under which Section, of which Act, is it illegal? And, what is the actual offence? LOL It's not illegal, you can just jump on a plane, boat whatever and enter any country you want. Said no one ever... ::) Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry". parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence". Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country It's never been legal to enter OZ without a visa, just as it is not "illegal" to claim asylum. There is no actual crime, that's why the PC nice people like you to use nice names. The carriage of the "not yet" asylum seekers is a crime.

The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is not an Australian law.

Sorry.

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:05pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:52pm: BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:19pm: 1. Because they've come before having their claim processed. That's correct. And it's perfectly legal, because they are asylum seekers. Once they say "I seek asylum", they are indeed asylum seekers.  Moreover, they can make that claim wherever they like: it doesn't have to be announced before they arrive in a foreign country. However, once they have claimed asylum, they then need to have their claim for refugee status processed. And before they say "i seek asylum" they have entered Australia illegaly. Under which Section, of which Act, is it illegal? And, what is the actual offence? LOL It's not illegal, you can just jump on a plane, boat whatever and enter any country you want. Said no one ever... ::) Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry". parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence". Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country It's never been legal to enter OZ without a visa, just as it is not "illegal" to claim asylum. There is no actual crime, that's why the PC nice people like you to use nice names. The carriage of the "not yet" asylum seekers is a crime.

The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is not an Australian Act.

.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:42pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:19pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:05pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:52pm: BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:19pm: 1. Because they've come before having their claim processed. That's correct. And it's perfectly legal, because they are asylum seekers. Once they say "I seek asylum", they are indeed asylum seekers.  Moreover, they can make that claim wherever they like: it doesn't have to be announced before they arrive in a foreign country. However, once they have claimed asylum, they then need to have their claim for refugee status processed. And before they say "i seek asylum" they have entered Australia illegaly. Under which Section, of which Act, is it illegal? And, what is the actual offence? LOL It's not illegal, you can just jump on a plane, boat whatever and enter any country you want. Said no one ever... ::) Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry". parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence". Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country It's never been legal to enter OZ without a visa, just as it is not "illegal" to claim asylum. There is no actual crime, that's why the PC nice people like you to use nice names. The carriage of the "not yet" asylum seekers is a crime. The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is not an Australian Act.

Illegal to enter, not to claim asylum.

Now, ef off illegal country shoppers.

;D ;D

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:47pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:42pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:19pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:05pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:52pm: BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:19pm: 1. Because they've come before having their claim processed. That's correct. And it's perfectly legal, because they are asylum seekers. Once they say "I seek asylum", they are indeed asylum seekers.  Moreover, they can make that claim wherever they like: it doesn't have to be announced before they arrive in a foreign country. However, once they have claimed asylum, they then need to have their claim for refugee status processed. And before they say "i seek asylum" they have entered Australia illegaly. Under which Section, of which Act, is it illegal? And, what is the actual offence? LOL It's not illegal, you can just jump on a plane, boat whatever and enter any country you want. Said no one ever... ::) Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry". parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence". Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country It's never been legal to enter OZ without a visa, just as it is not "illegal" to claim asylum. There is no actual crime, that's why the PC nice people like you to use nice names. The carriage of the "not yet" asylum seekers is a crime. The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is not an Australian Act. Illegal to enter, not to claim asylum.

Incorrect.

No piece of Australian legislation says that it is illegal to enter.

The verdict

Mr Morrison is correct.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.


Still illegal.... :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:49pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:47pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:42pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:19pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:05pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:52pm: BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:19pm: 1. Because they've come before having their claim processed. That's correct. And it's perfectly legal, because they are asylum seekers. Once they say "I seek asylum", they are indeed asylum seekers.  Moreover, they can make that claim wherever they like: it doesn't have to be announced before they arrive in a foreign country. However, once they have claimed asylum, they then need to have their claim for refugee status processed. And before they say "i seek asylum" they have entered Australia illegaly. Under which Section, of which Act, is it illegal? And, what is the actual offence? LOL It's not illegal, you can just jump on a plane, boat whatever and enter any country you want. Said no one ever... ::) Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry". parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence". Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country It's never been legal to enter OZ without a visa, just as it is not "illegal" to claim asylum. There is no actual crime, that's why the PC nice people like you to use nice names. The carriage of the "not yet" asylum seekers is a crime. The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is not an Australian Act. Illegal to enter, not to claim asylum. Incorrect. No piece of Australian legislation says that it is illegal to enter.

The verdict
Mr Morrison is correct.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:50pm:

The verdict Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law. Still illegal....

No.

Did you read your post?

It completely contradicts itself.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:59pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:50pm: The verdict Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law. Still illegal.... No. Did you read your post? It completely contradicts itself.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

:D :D :D :D :D

We are talking about "potential" asylum seekers crossing Australia's borders with the help of people smugglers.

That's "illegal"!!

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

That's why no one except morons on forums bother to even question the use of the term.

Bloody country shopping illegals.

;)

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 2:05pm:

We are talking about "potential" asylum seekers crossing Australia's borders with the help of people smugglers. That's "illegal"!!

No, it's not.

Saying the wrong thing louder doesn't make it right.

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 2:05pm:

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol ...

That's a new one.

Link?

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 2:05pm:

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

Yes...and no.

If they arrive at the border and claim asylum, they have committed no illegal act, so therefore, they have not "illegally entered the country".  Their claim for Asylum has to be adjudicated by the Refugee Tribunal.  If it is upheld, they are granted Asylum and allowed to enter the country.  If it is not, then and only then are they considered "illegal immigrants".

That is how the legislation is written and no matter how much or how often or how loudly the Government may claim otherwise, until they change the legislaton, that is how the law reads and that is how the employees of the Government are required to act.

You, because of your obvious xenophobia may wish to believe otherwise but that doesn't make it the truth!   ;D ;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 2:16pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 2:05pm: We are talking about "potential" asylum seekers crossing Australia's borders with the help of people smugglers. That's "illegal"!! No, it's not. Saying the wrong thing louder doesn't make it right.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.


:P

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 2:26pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 2:05pm: Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. Yes...and no. If they arrive at the border and claim asylum, they have committed no illegal act, so therefore, they have not "illegally entered the country".  Their claim for Asylum has to be adjudicated by the Refugee Tribunal.  If it is upheld, they are granted Asylum and allowed to enter the country.  If it is not, then and only then are they considered "illegal immigrants". That is how the legislation is written and no matter how much or how often or how loudly the Government may claim otherwise, until they change the legislaton, that is how the law reads and that is how the employees of the Government are required to act. You, because of your obvious xenophobia may wish to believe otherwise but that doesn't make it the truth!   ;D ;D ;D ;D

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

:)

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 2:28pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 2:26pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 2:05pm: Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. Yes...and no. If they arrive at the border and claim asylum, they have committed no illegal act, so therefore, they have not "illegally entered the country".  Their claim for Asylum has to be adjudicated by the Refugee Tribunal.  If it is upheld, they are granted Asylum and allowed to enter the country.  If it is not, then and only then are they considered "illegal immigrants". That is how the legislation is written and no matter how much or how often or how loudly the Government may claim otherwise, until they change the legislaton, that is how the law reads and that is how the employees of the Government are required to act. You, because of your obvious xenophobia may wish to believe otherwise but that doesn't make it the truth!   ;D ;D ;D ;D Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. :)

The protocol has no status in law, whereas the legislation does.  You cannot describe someone as being "illegal" without some form of legally binding judgement having been made against them which proves their legal or illegal status.  I'd love to see you try and argue this in a court of law.  It'd be amusing to watch as you're booted out the door!  Even the Government doesn't try and use this bullshit "protocol" in legal proceedings.  All it exists to do is to fool idiots like you into believing the Government's justification for what it's claiming about Asylum Seekers and doing to them... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The verdict

Mr Morrison is correct.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.


:D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 3:08pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 2:28pm: |dev|null wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 2:26pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 2:05pm: Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. Yes...and no. If they arrive at the border and claim asylum, they have committed no illegal act, so therefore, they have not "illegally entered the country".  Their claim for Asylum has to be adjudicated by the Refugee Tribunal.  If it is upheld, they are granted Asylum and allowed to enter the country.  If it is not, then and only then are they considered "illegal immigrants". That is how the legislation is written and no matter how much or how often or how loudly the Government may claim otherwise, until they change the legislaton, that is how the law reads and that is how the employees of the Government are required to act. You, because of your obvious xenophobia may wish to believe otherwise but that doesn't make it the truth!   ;D ;D ;D ;D Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. :) The protocol has no status in law, whereas the legislation does.  You cannot describe someone as being "illegal" without some form of legally binding judgement having been made against them which proves their legal or illegal status.  I'd love to see you try and argue this in a court of law.  It'd be amusing to watch as you're booted out the door!  Even the Government doesn't try and use this bullshit "protocol" in legal proceedings.  All it exists to do is to fool idiots like you into believing the Government's justification for what it's claiming about Asylum Seekers and doing to them... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The verdict

Mr Morrison is correct.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

That is the case even though these people have not [color=#ffff00]committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.[/color]

Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".

parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".


:o :o :o :o

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 3:08pm:

... fool idiots like you into believing the Government's justification for what it's claiming about Asylum Seekers and doing to them.

Indeed.

And the bigger the idiot, the easier they're fooled.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 3:08pm: ... fool idiots like you into believing the Government's justification for what it's claiming about Asylum Seekers and doing to them. Indeed. And the bigger the idiot, the easier they're fooled.

Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".
parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".


The verdict

Mr Morrison is correct.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.



:P :P :P

The Problem with Illegals.

People entering Australia without a visa are not referred to as "illegal" in the Act.
[...]
Irrespective of these sections, it is not a criminal offence under the Act to arrive in Australia without a visa.

The description of foreigners previously as illegal and currently as unlawful in the Migration Act does not mean they have broken the law.

It is a description of their entry status and determines the way authorities process them.

Arriving without a visa can only result in criminal sanctions if there is some other offence involved such as falsifying a passport or forging a document.

Looks like your "verdict" is incorrect.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Not my verdict.....f ::)f ::)s ::)

Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".

parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".


The verdict

Mr Morrison is correct.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 3:31pm:

The Problem with Illegals. People entering Australia without a visa are not referred to as "illegal" in the Act. [...] Irrespective of these sections, it is not a criminal offence under the Act to arrive in Australia without a visa. The description of foreigners previously as illegal and currently as unlawful in the Migration Act does not mean they have broken the law. It is a description of their entry status and determines the way authorities process them. Arriving without a visa can only result in criminal sanctions if there is some other offence involved such as falsifying a passport or forging a document. Looks like your "verdict" is incorrect.

Indeed, but he already knew that.

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 3:39pm:

Not my verdict.....f ::)f ::)s ::) Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry". parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence". The verdict Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.

You really are a turkey, you know that.  They are "illegal entrants" they are not "illegal immigrants".  There is a clear difference in law between the two phrases as has been set out in the High Court.  Appealing back to the Government's bullshit "protocol" doesn't change black to white or white to black, no matter how many times you scream it from the rooftops.    ;D ;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 3:44pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 3:31pm: The Problem with Illegals. People entering Australia without a visa are not referred to as "illegal" in the Act. [...] Irrespective of these sections, it is not a criminal offence under the Act to arrive in Australia without a visa. The description of foreigners previously as illegal and currently as unlawful in the Migration Act does not mean they have broken the law. It is a description of their entry status and determines the way authorities process them. Arriving without a visa can only result in criminal sanctions if there is some other offence involved such as falsifying a passport or forging a document. Looks like your "verdict" is incorrect.  Indeed, but he already knew that.

What a wanker.   ;D ;D ;D

Good on you 2 fanning each other!!

And as for Bad Breath - They are "illegal entrants"

LOL, nice own goal "Turkey" - "ILLEGAL" you see that peccer, even your fan mate calls 'em "ILLEGAL"

Article 31 is pretty clear...

Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".

parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".

;) :D ;D :o :-? :P ;D

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:05pm:

Article 31 is pretty clear... Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".

It isn't Australian legislation.

They aren't illegal.

They aren't "illegal entrants", "illegal immigrants", or "illegals".

You knew that already though.

Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".

parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".


The verdict

Mr Morrison is correct.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.

Turkey.  You're the one using the term "illegal immigrants".  I just call them "Asylum Seekers" which is not prejudiced.  Again, your appeal to the Government's "protocol" is pointless.  It has no standing in law, what so ever.   ;D ;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 3:44pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 3:31pm: The Problem with Illegals. People entering Australia without a visa are not referred to as "illegal" in the Act. [...] Irrespective of these sections, it is not a criminal offence under the Act to arrive in Australia without a visa. The description of foreigners previously as illegal and currently as unlawful in the Migration Act does not mean they have broken the law. It is a description of their entry status and determines the way authorities process them. Arriving without a visa can only result in criminal sanctions if there is some other offence involved such as falsifying a passport or forging a document. Looks like your "verdict" is incorrect.  Indeed, but he already knew that.

Not my verdict... ::)f ::)f ::)s ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:09pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:05pm: Article 31 is pretty clear... Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry". It isn't Australian legislation. They aren't illegal. They aren't "illegal entrants", "illegal immigrants", or "illegals". You knew that already though.

LOL, Australian legislation when it suits you, the UN Conention when it suits you.

Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".

parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".


The verdict

Mr Morrison is correct.

Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.

That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.

"STOP THE ILLEGALS"

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:09pm:

Turkey.  You're the one using the term "illegal immigrants".  I just call them "Asylum Seekers" which is not prejudiced.  Again, your appeal to the Government's "protocol" is pointless.  It has no standing in law, what so ever.

You could tell him it's black, and he'd still say it's white.

He has very little understanding of all things legal.

All he knows is "white people good, brown people bad, Libs good, lefties bad".

Blissful ignorance.

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:09pm:

Turkey.  You're the one using the term "illegal immigrants".  I just call them "Asylum Seekers" which is not prejudiced.  Again, your appeal to the Government's "protocol" is pointless.  It has no standing in law, what so ever.   ;D ;D ;D ;D

I haven't used the term "Illegal immigrants" once Tooley!! ::)

I call them asylum seekers too, claiming asylum isn't illegal.


Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry".

parties to the convention cannot penalise refugees as a result of their "illegal entry or presence" as long as they present to authorities "without delay" and "show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".


:o :o :o

:) :) :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:13pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:09pm: Turkey.  You're the one using the term "illegal immigrants".  I just call them "Asylum Seekers" which is not prejudiced.  Again, your appeal to the Government's "protocol" is pointless.  It has no standing in law, what so ever.    You could tell him it's black, and he'd still say it's white. He has very little understanding of all things legal. All he knows is "white people good, brown people bad, Libs good, lefties bad". Blissful ignorance.

Naaw, pedantic peccer got nothing but fanning for its friend...

"STOP THE ILLEGALS"


illegal entry


illegal entry


illegal entry


people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.


OMFG - who'd have thought getting smuggled across another countries borders was illegal!!!

:o :o

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:13pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:09pm: Turkey.  You're the one using the term "illegal immigrants".  I just call them "Asylum Seekers" which is not prejudiced.  Again, your appeal to the Government's "protocol" is pointless.  It has no standing in law, what so ever.    You could tell him it's black, and he'd still say it's white. He has very little understanding of all things legal. All he knows is "white people good, brown people bad, Libs good, lefties bad". Blissful ignorance.

Thanks heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:13pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:09pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:05pm: Article 31 is pretty clear... Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry". It isn't Australian legislation. They aren't illegal. They aren't "illegal entrants", "illegal immigrants", or "illegals". You knew that already though. LOL, Australian legislation when it suits you, the UN Conention when it suits you.

I'll type it slowly this time, so you can keep up.

The UN Convention is not a piece of Australian legislation, and I have never claimed it to be so.

Don't bother trying to argue with Gregg he's been told and shown time and time again...  it's like trying to talk sense to a brick wall.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:31pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:09pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:05pm: Article 31 is pretty clear... Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry". It isn't Australian legislation. They aren't illegal. They aren't "illegal entrants", "illegal immigrants", or "illegals". You knew that already though. LOL, Australian legislation when it suits you, the UN Conention when it suits you. I'll type it slowly this time, so you can keep up. The UN Convention is not a piece of Australian legislation, and I have never claimed it to be so.

The Australian Legislation however must conform to the UN Convention once it had been ratified by the Australian Parliament, which it was on 13 December 1973.

So, returning to the original topic of discussion...

What do you all think of the merits of a negligence claim?

I'm seeing difficulties with the duty and scope aspects, as well as big defences of volenti and illegality.

Thoughts?

|dev|null wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:31pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:13pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:09pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:05pm: Article 31 is pretty clear... Article 31 includes the term "illegal entry". It isn't Australian legislation. They aren't illegal. They aren't "illegal entrants", "illegal immigrants", or "illegals". You knew that already though. LOL, Australian legislation when it suits you, the UN Conention when it suits you. I'll type it slowly this time, so you can keep up. The UN Convention is not a piece of Australian legislation, and I have never claimed it to be so. The Australian Legislation however must conform to the UN Convention once it had been ratified by the Australian Parliament, which it was on 13 December 1973.

Yes.

And still, seeking asylum in a boat is not illegal.

Grendel wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

Don't bother trying to argue with Gregg he's been told and shown time and time again...  it's like trying to talk sense to a brick wall.

Incorrect, once again (it seems to be a habit with you).

Nobody has ever demonstrated that seeking asylum in a boat without a visa is illegal.  There is absolutely no reason to call asylum seekers, of any kind, "illegals": they are neither illegal nor immigrants.

Simple facts.

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

So, returning to the original topic of discussion... What do you all think of the merits of a negligence claim? I'm seeing difficulties with the duty and scope aspects, as well as big defences of volenti and illegality. Thoughts?

Volenti, maybe.  Illegality, not a chance.

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

So, returning to the original topic of discussion... What do you all think of the merits of a negligence claim? I'm seeing difficulties with the duty and scope aspects, as well as big defences of volenti and illegality. Thoughts?

The case has got nothing. The Australian government is not required under law to have a fully functional marine rescue service (on its mainland coast or as far as Christmas Island). I can't see how it could be argued that Christmas Island authorities were negligent in their duty of care over this vessel - locals (and local rescue services) made every effort to respond and saved quite a few lives. Nor was any ship negligent in its response under maritime law. As I understand, no one failed to respond to a signal or call-out.

I'm not sure why this case has been listed.

It's strange to say it, but this time I'm with Herbie.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 5:10pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:50pm: Don't bother trying to argue with Gregg he's been told and shown time and time again...  it's like trying to talk sense to a brick wall. Incorrect, once again (it seems to be a habit with you). Nobody has ever demonstrated that seeking asylum in a boat without a visa is illegal.  There is absolutely no reason to call asylum seekers, of any kind, "illegals": they are neither illegal nor immigrants. Simple facts.

Go and lie about someone else Troll...
You've been quoted the Convention again and again, yet you being the irritating pedant you are keep crapping on... well we all know what we are talking about regardless of your mindless prattle.

People who enter Australian territory illegally can claim to be asylum seekers and because the convention is so stupid and dated we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.  That doesn't mean their mode of entry was not illegal. 
Even the Convention recognises that.
That doesn't mean they are real refugees. 
Even the Convention recognises that.
It's just that we cannot prosecute them for it until their claim has been either found false or ratified.

It is perfectly fine for people who enter by illegal means to be called illegals... I understand perfectly what is meant by it.

You on the other hand are a pedantic prat.  :D :D :D

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:49pm: if you had the Australian govt. and all it's resources trying to kill you and your family, would you firstly, stop to apply for asylum in New Zealand and then 2) wait  for the application to be processed? (sometimes it takes years) or would you jump on the nearest boat going your way, wait to get somewhere safe and THEN apply If you were dumb enough to do it the first way, the result of your application wouldn't matter as you and your whole family would be dead before you found out anyway By the way blindfreddy .... what about those coming by plane and seeking asylum? are they also illegal?  Planes - use "unlawful" , coz "illegal" upsets gregg - depends if they have visas. If yes => no. If no => yes. Ask the Migration Act. As for your little analogy - it's quite different to the present case, because here NZ would be the first safe harbour from Aus. Naturally you'd run and bugger the consequences. However, you're not arguing that Australia is the first safe harbour from (say) Afghanistan, are you? Once you're out of your little hellhole, you go to a safe harbour that'll have you. Then, you can sit tight and wait your turn. Which brings us full circle: anyone who, not being a citizen, sets foot on Australian soil without a visa is an unlawful non citizen.

you might think Malaysia and Indonesia are 'safe'fpr asylum seekers, but many don't ... in fact, I believe that was one of Abbotts excuses for NOT supporting the Malaysia solution ... :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:14pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:49pm: if you had the Australian govt. and all it's resources trying to kill you and your family, would you firstly, stop to apply for asylum in New Zealand and then 2) wait  for the application to be processed? (sometimes it takes years) or would you jump on the nearest boat going your way, wait to get somewhere safe and THEN apply If you were dumb enough to do it the first way, the result of your application wouldn't matter as you and your whole family would be dead before you found out anyway By the way blindfreddy .... what about those coming by plane and seeking asylum? are they also illegal?  Planes - use "unlawful" , coz "illegal" upsets gregg - depends if they have visas. If yes => no. If no => yes. Ask the Migration Act. As for your little analogy - it's quite different to the present case, because here NZ would be the first safe harbour from Aus. Naturally you'd run and bugger the consequences. However, you're not arguing that Australia is the first safe harbour from (say) Afghanistan, are you? Once you're out of your little hellhole, you go to a safe harbour that'll have you. Then, you can sit tight and wait your turn. Which brings us full circle: anyone who, not being a citizen, sets foot on Australian soil without a visa is an unlawful non citizen. you might think Malaysia and Indonesia are 'safe'fpr asylum seekers, but many don't ... in fact, I believe that was one of Abbotts excuses for NOT supporting the Malaysia solution ... :D :D :D :D

Sane, predictable, reliable, stable government, stead as she goes. Say what you'll do and do what you say. A government you can trust - a government for all Australians.

Thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

Grendel wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 5:10pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 4:50pm: Don't bother trying to argue with Gregg he's been told and shown time and time again...  it's like trying to talk sense to a brick wall. Incorrect, once again (it seems to be a habit with you). Nobody has ever demonstrated that seeking asylum in a boat without a visa is illegal.  There is absolutely no reason to call asylum seekers, of any kind, "illegals": they are neither illegal nor immigrants. Simple facts. You've been quoted the Convention again and again ...

Correct, and that's exactly where you're going wrong.

Not illegal.

Keep trying though.

Grendel wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 5:57pm:

That doesn't mean they are real refugees.

Correct, and nobody is saying that it does.

Back on track ppl.

Why was this Berreta fellow targeted??

Australian Institute of criminology paper discussing the detention of asylum seekers


Quote:

Anthony J. Reilly, Solicitor, South Brisbane Immigration and Community Legal Service. There are two categories of on-shore refugee applicants — those who arrive in Australia with a valid visa and entry permit and those who arrive here illegally. Undocumented boat arrivals form the major part of the latter sub-group.

woof woof wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

Back on track ppl. Why was this Berreta fellow targeted??

For being the ringleader of the 200 or so Muslim ferals who kept up a constant chanted and shouted racial abuse at the Papua New Guinea guards.

It's a better world without him.

His 'retirement' at the hands of the local Abos is a blessing to us all.

Enquiring mind wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 6:02pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 5:58pm: BlindFreddy wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 1:14pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 17th, 2014 at 12:49pm: if you had the Australian govt. and all it's resources trying to kill you and your family, would you firstly, stop to apply for asylum in New Zealand and then 2) wait  for the application to be processed? (sometimes it takes years) or would you jump on the nearest boat going your way, wait to get somewhere safe and THEN apply If you were dumb enough to do it the first way, the result of your application wouldn't matter as you and your whole family would be dead before you found out anyway By the way blindfreddy .... what about those coming by plane and seeking asylum? are they also illegal?  Planes - use "unlawful" , coz "illegal" upsets gregg - depends if they have visas. If yes => no. If no => yes. Ask the Migration Act. As for your little analogy - it's quite different to the present case, because here NZ would be the first safe harbour from Aus. Naturally you'd run and bugger the consequences. However, you're not arguing that Australia is the first safe harbour from (say) Afghanistan, are you? Once you're out of your little hellhole, you go to a safe harbour that'll have you. Then, you can sit tight and wait your turn. Which brings us full circle: anyone who, not being a citizen, sets foot on Australian soil without a visa is an unlawful non citizen. you might think Malaysia and Indonesia are 'safe'fpr asylum seekers, but many don't ... in fact, I believe that was one of Abbotts excuses for NOT supporting the Malaysia solution ... :D :D :D :D Sane, predictable, reliable, stable government, stead as she goes. Say what you'll do and do what you say. A government you can trust - a government for all Australians. Thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

Hey, you forgot the "tall glass of water"
I like that one so much, ive been using it at work all week.  Its very catchy.

Country shopping illegal should have stayed home.

;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got?

It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport/visa. This is why they're detained in immigration detention facilities. We don't know who they are because they destroy everything that can identify them, so we can't have them living freely among us due to security and health concerns. Morrison is one hundred percent correct in that the term "illegal immigrant" is a perfectly apt description of these people. They were warned not to come and they ignored this warning. They knowingly destroy their passport in an attempt to frustrate authorities' attempts to identify them and prolong the whole process. Continue to argue your fatally flawed point if you wish, but it won't change the fact that Morrison succeeded within a matter of months where Labor failed appallingly over half a decade. You haven't got a leg to stand on and you know it. Deal with it.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport/visa. This is why they're detained in immigration detention facilities.

Incorrect.

They are detained for health, security, and ID checks.

Anything else you'd like cleared up, while I'm here?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:13pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport/visa. This is why they're detained in immigration detention facilities. Incorrect. They are detained for health, security, and ID checks. Anything else you'd like cleared up, while I'm here?

You cannot go past Customs and Immigration at any international airport in Australia (or any country) without a passport at the very least and sometimes also a visa. You can't even get a boarding pass - they won't give you one without sighting your passport at the check-in counter. It is illegal to cross borders without a passport, except in certain places such as the European Union. It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport. Even those who sail into port on their own boat will not be allowed off it by Customs without a passport. This isn't a point up for debate - it's LAW!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:13pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport/visa. This is why they're detained in immigration detention facilities. Incorrect. They are detained for health, security, and ID checks. Anything else you'd like cleared up, while I'm here? You cannot go past Customs and Immigration at any international airport in Australia (or any country) without a passport at the very least and sometimes also a visa. You can't even get a boarding pass - they won't give you one without sighting your passport at the check-in counter. It is illegal to cross borders without a passport, except in certain places such as the European Union. It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport. Even those who sail into port on their own boat will not be allowed off it by Customs without a passport. This isn't a point up for debate - it's LAW!

Armpit, you can arrive at Customs and Immigration and seek asylum.  Without a visa. :)  this would of course depend on the check in on the other side, given we have digital visas now and technically all counter staff at airports are meant to check this with your passport prior to departure.  But in the event they don't, an asylum seeker can very easily arrive in Australia and seek asylum without the need of showing any visa.

Not to mention that NO ONE needs a visa to seek asylum.  And not having a visa does not imply that person ISN'T a genuine refugee.
I know your fruit loops as substitute for your brain give you nothing more than a sugar high, but surely after years of repeating the same bullcrap you can now subside? Don't you get sick of constantly been shown that you have completely no idea? It must be depressing, surely.

And guess what Armpit, if , let's say, a person decided to during the flight throw their passport into the toilet and flush, and then they arrived in Australia, and claimed asylum, their entry is STILL not illegal and their claim will STILL be processed.

So all your absolute bull crap is just that, bull crap.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:13pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport/visa. This is why they're detained in immigration detention facilities. Incorrect. They are detained for health, security, and ID checks. Anything else you'd like cleared up, while I'm here? You cannot go past Customs and Immigration at any international airport in Australia (or any country) without a passport at the very least and sometimes also a visa. You can't even get a boarding pass - they won't give you one without sighting your passport at the check-in counter. It is illegal to cross borders without a passport, except in certain places such as the European Union. It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport. Even those who sail into port on their own boat will not be allowed off it by Customs without a passport. This isn't a point up for debate - it's LAW!

Which Section, of which Act?

That's all you have to provide. All others have failed; let's see how you go.

And, because I just love kicking you when you're down:

"Immigration detention supports a well-managed migration system and is used to enable the identification and management of potential risks to the Australian community, including national security, health and character risks. It also supports the integrity of Australia's visa programmes."

https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/82detention.htm

I love being right.  Do you love being wrong?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:13pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport/visa. This is why they're detained in immigration detention facilities. Incorrect. They are detained for health, security, and ID checks. Anything else you'd like cleared up, while I'm here? You cannot go past Customs and Immigration at any international airport in Australia (or any country) without a passport at the very least and sometimes also a visa. You can't even get a boarding pass - they won't give you one without sighting your passport at the check-in counter. It is illegal to cross borders without a passport, except in certain places such as the European Union. It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport. Even those who sail into port on their own boat will not be allowed off it by Customs without a passport. This isn't a point up for debate - it's LAW! Armpit, you can arrive at Customs and Immigration and seek asylum.  Without a visa. :)  this would of course depend on the check in on the other side, given we have digital visas now and technically all counter staff at airports are meant to check this with your passport prior to departure.  But in the event they don't, an asylum seeker can very easily arrive in Australia and seek asylum without the need of showing any visa. Not to mention that NO ONE needs a visa to seek asylum.

Don't even need a passport either...  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa?

:-?

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:50pm:

Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa? :-?

Must be, the Australian Government does it all the time, even provides the boats to do so, when it forces them back to Indonesia!   ;D ;D ;D ;D

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:50pm:

Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa? :-?

Which part of the act says your claim is no longer merited or becomes illegal I you do?

How many times do you need to go over it?  We get it, you don't like asylum seekers. But at least argue relevant and factual points, clown. 

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:50pm:

Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa?

Absolutely none.
As usual, you have it completely back to front.
That's not how the law works.

Using your "logic" (and I'm being extremely generous there), it would be "illegal" to walk on the cracks on the footpath, as there is no part of any Act that says it's legal.

Sometimes, your posts are fueled by ignorance.
Sometimes, irrational bigotry and hatred.
Sometimes, pure racism.
Today, however, it's sheer stupidity.

.

.

Nothing again peccer?

Your dumber than the illegal country shoppers that Rudd and the ALP want to rot on PNG.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:12pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:50pm: Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa? :-? Which part of the act says your claim is no longer merited or becomes illegal I you do? How many times do you need to go over it?  We get it, you don't like asylum seekers. But at least argue relevant and factual points, clown.

Naaaaaw, nothing...no facts... :(

|dev|null wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:50pm: Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa? :-? Must be, the Australian Government does it all the time, even provides the boats to do so, when it forces them back to Indonesia!   ;D ;D ;D ;D

No laws or Act's saying it's legal?

:oo :om :of :og :o

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:12pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:50pm: Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa? Absolutely none. As usual, you have it completely back to front. That's not how the law works. Using your "logic" (and I'm being extremely generous there), it would be "illegal" to walk on the cracks on the footpath, as there is no part of any Act that says it's legal. Sometimes, your posts are fueled by ignorance. Sometimes, irrational bigotry and hatred. Sometimes, pure racism. Today, however, it's sheer stupidity.

All i can find is term like "illegal to enter"

I thought you'd have something saying the opposite.


;D ;D

Silly illegal country shoppers. ;D

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

Nothing again peccer? Your dumber than the illegal country shoppers that Rudd and the ALP want to rot on PNG.

Keeping digging that hole old boy.

This is delightful to watch.

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:12pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:50pm: Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa? Absolutely none. As usual, you have it completely back to front. That's not how the law works. Using your "logic" (and I'm being extremely generous there), it would be "illegal" to walk on the cracks on the footpath, as there is no part of any Act that says it's legal. Sometimes, your posts are fueled by ignorance. Sometimes, irrational bigotry and hatred. Sometimes, pure racism. Today, however, it's sheer stupidity. All i can find is term like "illegal to enter" I thought you'd have something saying the opposite. ;D ;D Silly illegal country shoppers. ;D

There is absolutely nothing in the Act that says it is "illegal to enter".

Once again, your stupidity has tripped you up.

Keep digging old boy: I'm just lovin' this.

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:16pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:12pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:50pm: Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa? :-? Which part of the act says your claim is no longer merited or becomes illegal if you do? How many times do you need to go over it?  We get it, you don't like asylum seekers. But at least argue relevant and factual points, clown.  Naaaaaw, nothing...no facts... :(

clown boy, I expected more than the typical Grendel style argument from you. How absolutely pathetic.

Which part of the act says your claim is no longer merited or becomes illegal if you do?  Show us :)

From Grogcreeper:

clown boy, I expected more than the typical Grendel style argument from you. How absolutely pathetic.

Which part of the act says your claim is no longer merited or becomes illegal if you do?  Show us

Where TF did i say anything of the sort creeper?

Illegal entry

Illegal entry

Illegal entry

:)

:D :D :D

STOP THE ILLEGAL ENTRIES

;D

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:30pm:

From Grogcreeper: clown boy, I expected more than the typical Grendel style argument from you. How absolutely pathetic. Which part of the act says your claim is no longer merited or becomes illegal if you do?  Show us Where TF did i say anything of the sort creeper? Illegal entry Illegal entry Illegal entry :) :D :D :D STOP THE ILLEGAL ENTRIES ;D

do you do juggling acts too?
So it's not illegal to seek asylum after the use of people smugglers to get you to Australia.  Thanks for agreeing. :)  Now go pull some flowers out of your mouth, or whatever it is you do to fulfill your day :)

John Smith wrote on Jun 17^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

I believe that was one of Abbotts excuses for NOT supporting the Malaysia solution ... :D :D :D :D

Indeed - for God's sake don't send them to a place where they might, heaven forbid, be at risk of caning, instead we'll send them to some lawless shithole to get murdered by thugs.

Thank God the grown-ups are back in charge.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:19pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:12pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:50pm: Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa? Absolutely none. As usual, you have it completely back to front. That's not how the law works. Using your "logic" (and I'm being extremely generous there), it would be "illegal" to walk on the cracks on the footpath, as there is no part of any Act that says it's legal. Sometimes, your posts are fueled by ignorance. Sometimes, irrational bigotry and hatred. Sometimes, pure racism. Today, however, it's sheer stupidity. All i can find is term like "illegal to enter" I thought you'd have something saying the opposite. ;D ;D Silly illegal country shoppers. ;D There is absolutely nothing in the Act that says it is "illegal to enter". Once again, your stupidity has tripped you up. Keep digging old boy: I'm just lovin' this.

Naaaw peccer, i'm just having some fun.

The Verdict???

STOP THE ILLEGAL ENTRIES

;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:14pm: Nothing again peccer? Your dumber than the illegal country shoppers that Rudd and the ALP want to rot on PNG. Keeping digging that hole old boy. This is delightful to watch.

:oO :oM :oF :oG

GAMMER EROR!!!

STOP THE ILEGAL GRAMMMER

;D ;D

Is it legal to pay a people smuggler to sneak you to across OZ boders??


Waiting leftards

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:52pm:

Is it legal to pay a people smuggler to sneak you to across OZ boders?

Have a look for yourself:

"The legislation makes it an offence for a person (the first person) to organise or facilitate the bringing or coming to Australia, or the entry or proposed entry into Australia, of another person (the second person), where that second person is a non-citizen of Australia, and where the second person had, or has, no lawful right to come to Australia.

"Australian legislation also includes offences for concealing and harbouring non-citizens, and for providing false documents or false or misleading information relating to a non‑citizen."

http://www.ag.gov.au/CrimeAndCorruption/Peoplesmuggling/Pages/Peoplesmugglinglegislation.aspx

;D

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:53pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:50pm: Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa? :-? Must be, the Australian Government does it all the time, even provides the boats to do so, when it forces them back to Indonesia!   ;D ;D ;D ;D No laws or Act's saying it's legal? :oo :om :of :og :o

The Government seems to think people smuggling is legal.

Afterall, they illegally move peoples without visas and passports across international borders all the time - from Australia to Indonesia/PNG/Nauru and soon even Cambodia.   ;D ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 1:38pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:30pm: From Grogcreeper: clown boy, I expected more than the typical Grendel style argument from you. How absolutely pathetic. Which part of the act says your claim is no longer merited or becomes illegal if you do?  Show us Where TF did i say anything of the sort creeper? Illegal entry Illegal entry Illegal entry :) :D :D :D STOP THE ILLEGAL ENTRIES ;D do you do juggling acts too? So it's not illegal to seek asylum after the use of people smugglers to get you to Australia.  Thanks for agreeing. :)  Now go pull some flowers out of your mouth, or whatever it is you do to fulfill your day :)

I never said it was.

How much do you drink during the day!!! :D

no lawful right to come to Australia


Bloody illegals.... ;)

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 2:13pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:38pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:30pm: From Grogcreeper: clown boy, I expected more than the typical Grendel style argument from you. How absolutely pathetic. Which part of the act says your claim is no longer merited or becomes illegal if you do?  Show us Where TF did i say anything of the sort creeper? Illegal entry Illegal entry Illegal entry :) :D :D :D STOP THE ILLEGAL ENTRIES ;D do you do juggling acts too? So it's not illegal to seek asylum after the use of people smugglers to get you to Australia.  Thanks for agreeing. :)  Now go pull some flowers out of your mouth, or whatever it is you do to fulfill your day :) I never said it was. How much do you drink during the day!!! :D

Quote:

Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got?

Fine.
They are bundled off to PNG, never to be allowed to settle in Australia because they are "nothing illegal about seeking asylum" and are therefore treated as illegal immigrants.
Happy?

What else have you got?

Soren wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? Fine. They are bundled off to PNG, never to be allowed to settle in Australia because they are "nothing illegal about seeking asylum" and are therefore treated as illegal immigrants. Happy?

The Australian Government, past and present, treats asylum seekers dreadfully.

Why would I be happy about that?

Soren wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? Fine. They are bundled off to PNG, never to be allowed to settle in Australia because they are "nothing illegal about seeking asylum" and are therefore treated as illegal immigrants. Happy? What else have you got?

and the very fact that they are treated as illegal immigrants despite there being nothing illegal about seeking asylum just goes to show how both parties are circumventing not only our obligations to the refugee convention, but also ignoring the principles on which the migration act was formed.

http://socialumiere.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Types-Of-Split-Ends.jpg

NOWHERE does it say 'hair', so this is not about hair splitting.

Soren wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 2:44pm:

http://socialumiere.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Types-Of-Split-Ends.jpg NOWHERE does it say 'hair', so this is not about hair splitting.

That's right, it's about demonising asylum seekers.

If you're afraid of brown people and Muslims, just say so.
There's no need to make up lies, such as: " Illegals from iran make up ...".

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 2:22pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 2:13pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:38pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:30pm: From Grogcreeper: clown boy, I expected more than the typical Grendel style argument from you. How absolutely pathetic. Which part of the act says your claim is no longer merited or becomes illegal if you do?  Show us Where TF did i say anything of the sort creeper? Illegal entry Illegal entry Illegal entry :) :D :D :D STOP THE ILLEGAL ENTRIES ;D do you do juggling acts too? So it's not illegal to seek asylum after the use of people smugglers to get you to Australia.  Thanks for agreeing. :)  Now go pull some flowers out of your mouth, or whatever it is you do to fulfill your day :) I never said it was. How much do you drink during the day!!! :D Quote: Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa?

I'm sure you have a point...

So it's not illegal to seek asylum after the use of people smugglers to get you to Australia

Correct, seeking asylum isn't illegal you know!!

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 2:51pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 2:22pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 2:13pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:38pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:30pm: From Grogcreeper: clown boy, I expected more than the typical Grendel style argument from you. How absolutely pathetic. Which part of the act says your claim is no longer merited or becomes illegal if you do?  Show us Where TF did i say anything of the sort creeper? Illegal entry Illegal entry Illegal entry :) :D :D :D STOP THE ILLEGAL ENTRIES ;D do you do juggling acts too? So it's not illegal to seek asylum after the use of people smugglers to get you to Australia.  Thanks for agreeing. :)  Now go pull some flowers out of your mouth, or whatever it is you do to fulfill your day :) I never said it was. How much do you drink during the day!!! :D Quote: Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa? I'm sure you have a point... So it's not illegal to seek asylum after the use of people smugglers to get you to Australia Correct, seeking asylum isn't illegal you know!!

What about paying a people smuggler to get you to Australia?

Is that illegal?

|dev|null wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 12:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:20pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:13pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport/visa. This is why they're detained in immigration detention facilities. Incorrect. They are detained for health, security, and ID checks. Anything else you'd like cleared up, while I'm here? You cannot go past Customs and Immigration at any international airport in Australia (or any country) without a passport at the very least and sometimes also a visa. You can't even get a boarding pass - they won't give you one without sighting your passport at the check-in counter. It is illegal to cross borders without a passport, except in certain places such as the European Union. It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport. Even those who sail into port on their own boat will not be allowed off it by Customs without a passport. This isn't a point up for debate - it's LAW! Armpit, you can arrive at Customs and Immigration and seek asylum.  Without a visa. :)  this would of course depend on the check in on the other side, given we have digital visas now and technically all counter staff at airports are meant to check this with your passport prior to departure.  But in the event they don't, an asylum seeker can very easily arrive in Australia and seek asylum without the need of showing any visa. Not to mention that NO ONE needs a visa to seek asylum. Don't even need a passport either...  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Can't even get on a plane to come here without one, so you'd be wrong. How are they supposed to fly here without a passport?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 3:02pm:

Can't even get on a plane to come here without one, so you'd be wrong. How are they supposed to fly here without a passport?

Armpit, what happens if that passport is flushed down the toilet?  Can that person still seek asylum? 

King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 2:51pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 2:22pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 2:13pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:38pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 1:30pm: From Grogcreeper: clown boy, I expected more than the typical Grendel style argument from you. How absolutely pathetic. Which part of the act says your claim is no longer merited or becomes illegal if you do?  Show us Where TF did i say anything of the sort creeper? Illegal entry Illegal entry Illegal entry :) :D :D :D STOP THE ILLEGAL ENTRIES ;D do you do juggling acts too? So it's not illegal to seek asylum after the use of people smugglers to get you to Australia.  Thanks for agreeing. :)  Now go pull some flowers out of your mouth, or whatever it is you do to fulfill your day :) I never said it was. How much do you drink during the day!!! :D Quote: Which part of the Act says it is legal to pay a people smuggler to take you over Australia's border with-out a visa? I'm sure you have a point... So it's not illegal to seek asylum after the use of people smugglers to get you to Australia Correct, seeking asylum isn't illegal you know!!

I'm sure you know the point so stop wasting time, clown boy :)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18^th, 2014 at 3:02pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:20pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:13pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 18th, 2014 at 12:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 8:26pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 16th, 2014 at 7:47pm: * Illegals from iran make up about ... Lost all credibility, right there. Nothing illegal about seeking asylum. What else you got? It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport/visa. This is why they're detained in immigration detention facilities. Incorrect. They are detained for health, security, and ID checks. Anything else you'd like cleared up, while I'm here? You cannot go past Customs and Immigration at any international airport in Australia (or any country) without a passport at the very least and sometimes also a visa. You can't even get a boarding pass - they won't give you one without sighting your passport at the check-in counter. It is illegal to cross borders without a passport, except in certain places such as the European Union. It is illegal to enter Australia without a passport. Even those who sail into port on their own boat will not be allowed off it by Customs without a passport. This isn't a point up for debate - it's LAW! Armpit, you can arrive at Customs and Immigration and seek asylum.  Without a visa. :)  this would of course depend on the check in on the other side, given we have digital visas now and technically all counter staff at airports are meant to check this with your passport prior to departure.  But in the event they don't, an asylum seeker can very easily arrive in Australia and seek asylum without the need of showing any visa. Not to mention that NO ONE needs a visa to seek asylum. Don't even need a passport either...  ;D ;D ;D ;D Can't even get on a plane to come here without one, so you'd be wrong. How are they supposed to fly here without a passport?

that's because commercial airlines don't want to be forced to pay for the return trip, not because of any laws

charter a private plane and see if anyone asks for you passport while you are boarding :D :D