Asylum seekers are reportedly being secretly screened at sea via video link, potentially breaching international law.

One Sri Lankan naval official has confirmed that some hopeful refugees will be transferred into Sri Lankan custody at sea after being asked just four basic questions, although another Sri Lankan official denied the procedure.

Fairfax Media reports the asylum seekers are being asked their name, country of origin, where they had come from and why they had left before their claim for asylum is considered, but lawyer Julian Burnside says Australia could be guilty of refoulement.

Non-refoulement is a key facet of refugee law, regarding protection of refugees from being returned to areas where their lives or freedoms could be threatened.

"It is very clear the department is screening people to get them out as fast as possible and not with a view to assess whether they are refugees," Mr Burnside said.

Director of Human Rights Watch Elaine Pearson also questioned the practice, calling it "not only highly disturbing, but probably unlawful".

Christmas Island local councillor Gordon Thomson on Wednesday called on the federal government to confirm the accuracy of reports that asylum seekers had been transferred from Australian custody.

"It's a very, very, very disturbing story, if it's true," he told AAP.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/24374328/australia-assessing-refugees-at-sea/

We, the people of Australia have a right to know what our government is doing with those seeking asylum in our country.

If found guilty of unlawful activities, Abbott and Morrison should be hauled before the international court.

What country in the world would hand asylum seekers back to the very people they were fleeing? What have we become? What maniacs do we have in charge?

Stop the lies Morriscum!

Silence on missing asylum seeker boat a disgrace to the nation


"Anyone who troubles to look behind the political rhetoric can identify Morrison’s lies."

The boat last made contact with Australia by phone on June 28 at about 10am. At that time, the boat was 175 nautical miles from Christmas Island.

That same Saturday, Labor MP Alannah MacTiernan was on Christmas Island. She said immigration staff on Christmas Island were “on standby waiting for instructions”. She said she had been told two boats had been intercepted. She told the ABC: “They're saying that two boats have been intercepted and the ship on which they're being loaded is in Christmas Island waters.”

That same day Scott Morrison refused to confirm the boats’ existence despite the fact that people in Australia had spoken to people on board. He said that there were no “significant incidents at sea” to report.


The known facts suggest several Tamil refugees reached the waters off Christmas Island last weekend. The facts make it apparent they included several children, and it is easy to infer they would have been distressed: it is a long and uncomfortable journey. They were seeking asylum from the Rajapaksa government in Sri Lanka, which has an appalling record of mistreating Tamils who had (or may have had) any connection with the Tamil Tigers.

From this point on, the facts are more difficult to pin down.


Morrison officially calls boat people “illegal” in an attempt to convey the impression that they are criminals, when in fact they commit no offence at all by coming here as they do.


And whatever the facts turn out to be, Morrison has treated the Australian public with contempt. The public have a legitimate interest in knowing what is being done, in our name, to people who have done nothing worse than ask for our help. Morrison either knows the fate of the refugees or he does not.  If he does, he should tell us: either that they have been rescued or helped, or that they have been sent to Sri Lanka.  The alternative is that he does not know, in which case he should be sacked for incompetence.

We should no longer be treated as if we do not care about the fate of other human beings.


Read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/silence-on-missing-asylum-seeker-boat-a-disgrace-to-the-nation-20140702-zstko.html#ixzz36QJ8DMil

Keep up the good job Tony.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Swagman wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 9:29am:

Keep up the good job Tony.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Undermining the global approach to refugees so causing even more deaths and more opportunity for persecution. How is that a good thing?

Efficient, effective.

Well done Libs.

We no longer have scores of illegals daily coming here, risking their own lives and lives of Australians.
Everyone is safer.

It is a magnificant victory.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 9:38am:

Efficient, effective. Well done Libs. We no longer have scores of illegals daily coming here, risking their own lives and lives of Australians. Everyone is safer. It is a magnificant victory.

It's a blight on our record - if I felt any responsbility for the policy I'd be ashamed.

A government willing to treat people they way they have for political ends is dangerous and heartless.

If I believed in people deserving things, I'd say anyone who supports this policy deserves to become a refugee and have to deal with the situation first hand.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 9:38am:

We no longer have scores of illegals daily coming here ...

Incorrect (once again).

"There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat.

"Figures obtained by The Advertiser from the Immigration Department and under the Freedom of Information Act show plane arrivals from the United States (5080) and Britain (3610) are near the top of the list of those in the country without a valid visa. China (8070), and Malaysia (4200) round out the top four."

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

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 9:38am:

Efficient, effective. Efficient? No, It's costing us billions of dollars. Effective? No, they're still coming. Well done Libs. We no longer have scores of illegals daily coming here, They are coming by air. risking their own lives and lives of Australians. They spent two weeks in a rickety old boat in rough seas calling for help. Everyone is safer. Sending them back to torture or death is not safer. It is a magnificant victory.

Sending people to their death is not a victory.

We could always offer Sri Lank billions of dollars to stop the torture, better idea, yes?

____ wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 9:31am:

Swagman wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:29am: Keep up the good job Tony.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Undermining the global approach to refugees so causing even more deaths and more opportunity for persecution. How is that a good thing?

He's stopping the unauthorised boats and thus limiting the amount of unlawful non-citiizens.

Burnside is likely unhappy because Tony is limiting his source of potential income.

Swagman wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 10:26am:

____ wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:31am: Swagman wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:29am: Keep up the good job Tony.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Undermining the global approach to refugees so causing even more deaths and more opportunity for persecution. How is that a good thing? He's stopping the unauthorised boats and thus limiting the amount of unlawful non-citiizens. Burnside is likely unhappy because Tony is limiting his source of potential income.

He is also likely sending people to their deaths.

Kytro wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 10:35am:

Swagman wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:26am: ____ wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:31am: Swagman wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:29am: Keep up the good job Tony.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Undermining the global approach to refugees so causing even more deaths and more opportunity for persecution. How is that a good thing? He's stopping the unauthorised boats and thus limiting the amount of unlawful non-citiizens. Burnside is likely unhappy because Tony is limiting his source of potential income. He is also likely sending people to their deaths.

explain your claim.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 9:25am:

Morrison officially calls boat people “illegal” in an attempt to convey the impression that they are criminals, when in fact they commit no offence at all by coming here as they do.

Clever spin but Morrison  is correct. Just because no offence is committed does not make the fact of the entry legal, it is still an illegal act to enter without a valid visa. You and the author are under the illusion that an illegal act must have a penalty, this is incorrect.

Kytro wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 10:35am:

Swagman wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:26am: ____ wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:31am: Swagman wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:29am: Keep up the good job Tony.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Undermining the global approach to refugees so causing even more deaths and more opportunity for persecution. How is that a good thing? He's stopping the unauthorised boats and thus limiting the amount of unlawful non-citiizens. Burnside is likely unhappy because Tony is limiting his source of potential income. He is also likely sending people to their deaths.

No, the drowning deaths can be linked to the Left's relaxation of the Howard Govt's border protection policies.

Labor and Greens concerned by 'shifting goal posts'

Labor is seeking a briefing form the Immigration Department on the legislation.

A spokesperson for Labor's immigration spokesman Richard Marles says the Opposition would be "extremely concerned if the Government attempts to use complex legislation to sneak through shifting the goal posts on what determines refugee status".

Greens immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young says the proposed changes misunderstand the actions of asylum seekers.

"Forcing them to have to prove that they have over 50 per cent chance of people killed or tortured, otherwise they will be sent home, they won't be given protection," she said.

"That is incredibly ideological and grubby dog whistling. This is about allowing the Government to deport more refugees back home to danger."

Senator Hanson-Young says the bill will result in more asylum seekers lives being put at risk.

"This is a mean, dangerous law from the Government," she said.

"If this was not so serious, if it was not about life or death, it would actually be a joke."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/morrison-pushes-for-asylum-seeker-processing-overhaul/5549388

why dont Tamils just seek asylum in Tamil majority populated and governed neighbouring Tamil Nadu? Its a few hundred miles from Sri lanka.

Abbott, Morrison and Bishop and all their hangers on have the blood of human sacrifice on their hands. How low can we get?

Sri Lanka thanks Australia for its 'bold' decision

The Sri Lankan government has publicly thanked Australia for its "bold" decision not to co-sponsor a UN resolution to investigate alleged human rights abuses in the south Asian nation.

According to a statement by the Sri Lankan high commission, Sri Lanka thanked Australia for the ‘‘bold decision of not co-sponsoring this year’s human rights resolution on Sri Lanka’’.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and the head of Operation Sovereign Borders, Lieutenant-General Angus Campbell, welcomed a Sri Lanka delegation, including Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa, formally invited by the federal government.

“The visit shows the price this Government is willing to pay in its one-eyed obsession to stop the boats," said Emily Howie, director of Advocacy and Research Human Rights Law Centre. "Not just silence on ongoing human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, but a concerted effort to stifle international efforts at justice for victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity,” Ms Howie said.

Ms Bishop voiced her opposition to an international investigation into the alleged war crimes in March, saying she was not convinced that the UN-backed inquiry was "the best way forward", refusing to co-sponsor the UN's independent investigation.
During November's Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Australia did not join other major countries that crtiticised the regime's human rights abuses. Both India and Canada boycotted the meeting, while the United Kingdom's prime minister David Cameron publicly condemned the regime.

In contrast, Prime Minister Tony Abbott presented the government with two patrol boats.


Aiding and abetting in human rights abuses.....charming!

Read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/sri-lanka-thanks-australia-for-its-bold-decision-20140506-zr5n9.html#ixzz36QiIN6bg

ian wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 10:52am:

why dont Tamils just seek asylum in Tamil majority populated and governed neighbouring Tamil Nadu? Its a few hundred miles from Sri lanka.

Sorry Ian, simple logic just doesn't cut it in this ludicrous "asylum seeker" debate!
While I agree that we have a right to know exactly what our government is doing I by and large agree with their attitude, these illegal immigrants should NOT be admitted into Australia.
If relief from perceived threat or danger of abuse was what they were really after then there are far more easy places to run, India just for starters, but by attempting to use the UN to force their way in here they PROVE they are only economic migrants, nothing more.
As far as I'm concerned Australia could do nothing more useful and sensible than withdrawing from the UN entirely, they're nothing more than a hyper-expensive self-serving mob of ideological IDIOTS!
Show me a single good that membership of the UN has done for Australia?
Look at the $million$ it has cost us, for NO benefit and many problems!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 9:49am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:38am: We no longer have scores of illegals daily coming here ... Incorrect (once again). "There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat. "Figures obtained by The Advertiser from the Immigration Department and under the Freedom of Information Act show plane arrivals from the United States (5080) and Britain (3610) are near the top of the list of those in the country without a valid visa. China (8070), and Malaysia (4200) round out the top four." http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050

if they arrive by plane they arrive legally.

pansi -
Quote:

.........Emily Howie, director of Advocacy and Research Human Rights Law Centre........

What is that job ? sobbing crocodile tears over the worlds losers from a comfy chair while on a big salary.

The libs should sack that deprtment. I would

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 7:14am:

We, the people of Australia have a right to know what our government is doing with those seeking asylum in our country. If found guilty of unlawful activities, Abbott and Morrison should be hauled before the international court. What country in the world would hand asylum seekers back to the very people they were fleeing? What have we become? What maniacs do we have in charge?

Rubbish.....as usual!

ian wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 10:52am:

why dont Tamils just seek asylum in Tamil majority populated and governed neighbouring Tamil Nadu?

They do.

The guy who burned himself to death was from there - and was promised by Morrison to go, not back "home", but to Sri Lanka, where he was convinced he would be arrested and tortured.

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 12:07pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 7:14am: We, the people of Australia have a right to know what our government is doing with those seeking asylum in our country. If found guilty of unlawful activities, Abbott and Morrison should be hauled before the international court. What country in the world would hand asylum seekers back to the very people they were fleeing? What have we become? What maniacs do we have in charge? Rubbish.....as usual!

Which bit is "rubbish"?

Kytro wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 9:48am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:38am: Efficient, effective. Well done Libs. We no longer have scores of illegals daily coming here, risking their own lives and lives of Australians. Everyone is safer. It is a magnificant victory. It's a blight on our record - if I felt any responsbility for the policy I'd be ashamed. A government willing to treat people they way they have for political ends is dangerous and heartless. If I believed in people deserving things, I'd say anyone who supports this policy deserves to become a refugee and have to deal with the situation first hand.

I'd be ashamed, too, if I supported the Labor way!

austranger wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 11:17am:

ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:52am: why dont Tamils just seek asylum in Tamil majority populated and governed neighbouring Tamil Nadu? Its a few hundred miles from Sri lanka. Sorry Ian, simple logic just doesn't cut it in this ludicrous "asylum seeker" debate! While I agree that we have a right to know exactly what our government is doing I by and large agree with their attitude, these illegal immigrants should NOT be admitted into Australia. If relief from perceived threat or danger of abuse was what they were really after then there are far more easy places to run, India just for starters, but by attempting to use the UN to force their way in here they PROVE they are only economic migrants, nothing more. As far as I'm concerned Australia could do nothing more useful and sensible than withdrawing from the UN entirely, they're nothing more than a hyper-expensive self-serving mob of ideological IDIOTS! Show me a single good that membership of the UN has done for Australia? Look at the $million$ it has cost us, for NO benefit and many problems!

bump
we pay them money and they give us problems.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 12:12pm:

ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:52am: why dont Tamils just seek asylum in Tamil majority populated and governed neighbouring Tamil Nadu? They do. The guy who burned himself to death was from there - and was promised by Morrison to go, not back "home", but to Sri Lanka, where he was convinced he would be arrested and tortured.

Did he make a wrong turn?

The winds weren't favourable?

Swagman wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 1:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 12:12pm: ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:52am: why dont Tamils just seek asylum in Tamil majority populated and governed neighbouring Tamil Nadu? They do. The guy who burned himself to death was from there - and was promised by Morrison to go, not back "home", but to Sri Lanka, where he was convinced he would be arrested and tortured. Did he make a wrong turn? The winds weren't favourable?

That's how stupid he was.
No wonder the left loved him.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 12:52pm:

Kytro wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:48am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:38am: Efficient, effective. Well done Libs. We no longer have scores of illegals daily coming here, risking their own lives and lives of Australians. Everyone is safer. It is a magnificant victory. It's a blight on our record - if I felt any responsbility for the policy I'd be ashamed. A government willing to treat people they way they have for political ends is dangerous and heartless. If I believed in people deserving things, I'd say anyone who supports this policy deserves to become a refugee and have to deal with the situation first hand. I'd be ashamed, too, if I supported the Labor way!

Absolutely.

Both the Libs and the ALP should be ashamed of the way they've treated asylum seekers.

There are no winners in this situation.

ian wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 10:41am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Morrison officially calls boat people “illegal” in an attempt to convey the impression that they are criminals, when in fact they commit no offence at all by coming here as they do. Clever spin but Morrison  is correct. Just because no offence is committed does not make the fact of the entry legal, it is still an illegal act to enter without a valid visa. You and the author are under the illusion that an illegal act must have a penalty, this is incorrect.

Actually, it isn't.  The Immigration Act officially declares it "unlawful" NOT "illegal".    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 2:30pm:

ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:41am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Morrison officially calls boat people “illegal” in an attempt to convey the impression that they are criminals, when in fact they commit no offence at all by coming here as they do. Clever spin but Morrison  is correct. Just because no offence is committed does not make the fact of the entry legal, it is still an illegal act to enter without a valid visa. You and the author are under the illusion that an illegal act must have a penalty, this is incorrect. Actually, it isn't.  The Immigration Act officially declares it "unlawful" NOT "illegal".    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

"unlawful" NOT "illegal".

Care to explain the difference, especially in how it applies in this circumstance?  8-)

austranger wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:30pm: ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:41am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Morrison officially calls boat people “illegal” in an attempt to convey the impression that they are criminals, when in fact they commit no offence at all by coming here as they do. Clever spin but Morrison  is correct. Just because no offence is committed does not make the fact of the entry legal, it is still an illegal act to enter without a valid visa. You and the author are under the illusion that an illegal act must have a penalty, this is incorrect. Actually, it isn't.  The Immigration Act officially declares it "unlawful" NOT "illegal".    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D "unlawful" NOT "illegal". Care to explain the difference, especially in how it applies in this circumstance?  8-)

"Illegal" assumes a judgement has been made by a properly convened judicial authority against the individual concerned.  In this case, the Immigration Review Tribunal.

"Unlawful" simply states that it is against the law.  No judgement has been made as to whether or not the individual is guilty of the offence they are being charged with.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 2:30pm:

ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:41am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Morrison officially calls boat people “illegal” in an attempt to convey the impression that they are criminals, when in fact they commit no offence at all by coming here as they do. Clever spin but Morrison  is correct. Just because no offence is committed does not make the fact of the entry legal, it is still an illegal act to enter without a valid visa. You and the author are under the illusion that an illegal act must have a penalty, this is incorrect. Actually, it isn't.  The Immigration Act officially declares it "unlawful" NOT "illegal".    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

refugee advocates, immigration lawyers, and the whole of the legal system in australia agrees that these people are entering illegally under the migration act. There is no debate on this except from simpletons.

austranger wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 2:35pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:30pm: ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:41am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Morrison officially calls boat people “illegal” in an attempt to convey the impression that they are criminals, when in fact they commit no offence at all by coming here as they do. Clever spin but Morrison  is correct. Just because no offence is committed does not make the fact of the entry legal, it is still an illegal act to enter without a valid visa. You and the author are under the illusion that an illegal act must have a penalty, this is incorrect. Actually, it isn't.  The Immigration Act officially declares it "unlawful" NOT "illegal".    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D "unlawful" NOT "illegal". Care to explain the difference, especially in how it applies in this circumstance?

Something illegal is expressly proscribed by statute, and something unlawful is just not expressly authorised.

Entry by an asylum seeker without a visa is not expressly proscribed in the Migration Act.  It's not a criminal offense, therefore, it's not illegal.

However, entry without a visa is not expressly authorised, therefore, it is unlawful.

We've been through this a hundred times.  I assumed everyone was clear on the facts by now.  It's not illegal, and Section 14 of the Act makes that perfectly clear.

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 2:42pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:35pm: |dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:30pm: ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:41am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Morrison officially calls boat people “illegal” in an attempt to convey the impression that they are criminals, when in fact they commit no offence at all by coming here as they do. Clever spin but Morrison  is correct. Just because no offence is committed does not make the fact of the entry legal, it is still an illegal act to enter without a valid visa. You and the author are under the illusion that an illegal act must have a penalty, this is incorrect. Actually, it isn't.  The Immigration Act officially declares it "unlawful" NOT "illegal".    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D "unlawful" NOT "illegal". Care to explain the difference, especially in how it applies in this circumstance?  8-) "Illegal" assumes a judgement has been made by a properly convened judicial authority against the individual concerned.  In this case, the Immigration Review Tribunal. "Unlawful" simply states that it is against the law.  No judgement has been made as to whether or not the individual is guilty of the offence they are being charged with.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

totally incorrect, as I stated, simply because an act is illegal does not make it bound to a judgement or a penalty. Its quite clear that anyone who enters australia without a valid visa is doing so illegally despite the fact there is  no penalty prescribed by law.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:10pm:

It's not a criminal offense, therefore, it's not illegal.

Incorrect, an act does not have to be a criminal offense to be illegal. despite which it would not be possible to jail the crew on the people smuggling boats if their cargo were not being smuggled illegally, you simply have nowhere to go with this. You are wrong and I have continually shown you are wrong.

Once again Morriscum shows what a pathetic ecxuse for a human being he is ....

ian wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:10pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:42pm: austranger wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:35pm: |dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:30pm: ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:41am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Morrison officially calls boat people “illegal” in an attempt to convey the impression that they are criminals, when in fact they commit no offence at all by coming here as they do. Clever spin but Morrison  is correct. Just because no offence is committed does not make the fact of the entry legal, it is still an illegal act to enter without a valid visa. You and the author are under the illusion that an illegal act must have a penalty, this is incorrect. Actually, it isn't.  The Immigration Act officially declares it "unlawful" NOT "illegal".    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D "unlawful" NOT "illegal". Care to explain the difference, especially in how it applies in this circumstance?  8-) "Illegal" assumes a judgement has been made by a properly convened judicial authority against the individual concerned.  In this case, the Immigration Review Tribunal. "Unlawful" simply states that it is against the law.  No judgement has been made as to whether or not the individual is guilty of the offence they are being charged with.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D totally incorrect, as I stated, simply because an act is illegal does not make it bound to a judgement or a penalty. Its quite clear that anyone who enters australia without a valid visa is doing so illegally despite the fact there is  no penalty prescribed by law.

No, they enter unlawfully.

Entering without a visa is not proscribed in the Act, therefore, it is not illegal.  It is not an offense.

You do what you have to to keep the invasion at bay.
And you don't talk about it, you don't feed the enemy.

ian wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 3:10pm:   It's not a criminal offense, therefore, it's not illegal. Incorrect, an act does not have to be a criminal offense to be illegal. despite which it would not be possible to jail the crew on the people smuggling boats if their cargo were not being smuggled illegally, you simply have nowhere to go with this. You are wrong and I have continually shown you are wrong.

No, I am quite correct.  In fact, I've proven you wrong time and time again over this issue.

Entering without a visa is not proscribed in the Act, therefore, it is not illegal.

However, seeing as it is not expressly authorised under the Act, it is unlawful.

Unlawful, but certainly not illegal.  Moreover, Section 14 of the Act establishes that fact beyond all doubt.

Legal Studies 101

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:14pm:

[ No, they enter unlawfully. Entering without a visa is not proscribed in the Act, therefore, it is not illegal.  It is not an offense.

Quote:

People smugglers are individuals or groups who assist others to illegally enter a country. In the case of Australia, people smugglers provide air or sea access.

http://www.afp.gov.au/policing/people-smuggling.aspx

we can continue if you like?

ian wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 3:10pm:   It's not a criminal offense, therefore, it's not illegal. ... despite which it would not be possible to jail the crew on the people smuggling boats if their cargo were not being smuggled illegally ...

People smuggling is an offence.  It's proscribed in an Act. It's illegal.

Who said people smuggling wasn't illegal?

Entering without a visa, however, is not illegal (it's unlawful).

Organised and helped by the Greens and Labor, this is a set-up to break the 'no boats' record of Scott Morrison. This lot had GPS and sat-phone and had made calls to a media outlet on Australia mainland and had phone numbers of various people including members of the Green Party and probably Labor.

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

Organised and helped by the Greens and Labor, this is a set-up to break the 'no boats' record of Scott Morrison. This lot had GPS and sat-phone and had made calls to a media outlet on Australia mainland and had phone numbers of various people including members of the Green Party and probably Labor.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tDqNatNar_w/T3x9lQO9WCI/AAAAAAAAAc8/8Rjw-De89zw/s1600/tinfoil.jpg

ian wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 3:14pm: [ No, they enter unlawfully. Entering without a visa is not proscribed in the Act, therefore, it is not illegal.  It is not an offense. Quote: People smugglers are individuals or groups who assist others to illegally enter a country. In the case of Australia, people smugglers provide air or sea access. http://www.afp.gov.au/policing/people-smuggling.aspx we can continue if you like?

Absolutely.

I'll continue until you do what you always do: give up once you realise your mistake, and then log off.

It's not illegal.

People smuggling certainly is illegal, as it is expressly proscribed in an Act.

Entering without a visa, however, is not illegal: it is not proscribed in any Act.

The terminology used on that website is incorrect.  It is a website, not a piece of Australian legislation. 

Once you show a piece of Australian legislation that proscribes entering without a visa, we will have something to discuss.

Until then, you are on the losing end of this argument.

Are you the one in the middle dipstick?

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:32pm:

Are you the one in the middle dipstick?

you're the one on the right? right? ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:40pm:

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 3:32pm: Are you the one in the middle dipstick? you're the one on the right? right? ;D ;D

http://s25.postimg.org/l3owd6wzj/image.jpg

Hurry dipstick you're needed!

I and millions of others don't give a flying bugger about these boat ppl. They are not wanted here by I would guess 90% of the population.

Sending this lot of Sri Lankans back to Sri Lanka will be the final arrival of boats, the message loud and clear.

bugger off your not wanted or invited

.

ian wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 10:36am:

Kytro wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:35am: Swagman wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:26am: ____ wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:31am: Swagman wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:29am: Keep up the good job Tony.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif] Undermining the global approach to refugees so causing even more deaths and more opportunity for persecution. How is that a good thing? He's stopping the unauthorised boats and thus limiting the amount of unlawful non-citiizens. Burnside is likely unhappy because Tony is limiting his source of potential income. He is also likely sending people to their deaths. explain your claim.

People are fleeing persecution, including possible execution and he sends them back without even assessing the claims, so some are likely to be killed.

woof woof wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:44pm:

I and millions of others don't give a flying bugger about these boat ppl. They are not wanted here by I would guess 90% of the population. Sending this lot of Sri Lankans back to Sri Lanka will be the final arrival of boats, the message loud and clear. bugger off your not wanted or invited

It's not 90%. There is about 70% support for turning back boats "if safe" and about 56% support for offshore processing.

This wasn't always the case, it has changed as governments and media created a negative image.

If Australia does not want follow the rules it agreed to, it should withdraw from the treaty, not break it.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:16pm:

You do what you have to to keep the invasion at bay. And you don't talk about it, you don't feed the enemy.

"invasion"?

"enemy"?

Paranoid much?

ian wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:10pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:42pm: austranger wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:35pm: |dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:30pm: ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:41am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Morrison officially calls boat people “illegal” in an attempt to convey the impression that they are criminals, when in fact they commit no offence at all by coming here as they do. Clever spin but Morrison  is correct. Just because no offence is committed does not make the fact of the entry legal, it is still an illegal act to enter without a valid visa. You and the author are under the illusion that an illegal act must have a penalty, this is incorrect. Actually, it isn't.  The Immigration Act officially declares it "unlawful" NOT "illegal".    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D "unlawful" NOT "illegal". Care to explain the difference, especially in how it applies in this circumstance?  8-) "Illegal" assumes a judgement has been made by a properly convened judicial authority against the individual concerned.  In this case, the Immigration Review Tribunal. "Unlawful" simply states that it is against the law.  No judgement has been made as to whether or not the individual is guilty of the offence they are being charged with.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D totally incorrect, as I stated, simply because an act is illegal does not make it bound to a judgement or a penalty. Its quite clear that anyone who enters australia without a valid visa is doing so illegally despite the fact there is  no penalty prescribed by law.

We are not talking about "an act" we are talking about how the perpetrator is described.

You may have noticed how the ABC describes a person who has allegedly committed a criminal act - they use the word "allegedly" for a reason, a legal reason.  You cannot describe a person as a criminal unless they have been convicted of a criminal offence, otherwise they'll sue the pants off you.

Same goes for Asylum Seekers.  They have not been convicted of any illegal act.  They may have committed an "unlawful" act but they haven't been convicted of anything.

As it is, coming to Australia and seeking Asylum as you have been told many times is not an illegal act.  Arriving by boat without documentation, is an unlawful act.  If you fail to produce the documentation required and your claim for Asylum is disallowed, then you can be described as an "illegal immigrant".  NOT BEFORE.  This is basic law.  Go put the Dunce's Hat on, sit on the stool in the corner.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 4:35pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 3:16pm: You do what you have to to keep the invasion at bay. And you don't talk about it, you don't feed the enemy. "invasion"? "enemy"? Paranoid much?

How many should we refuse to collect from boats??

woof woof wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 5:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 4:35pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 3:16pm: You do what you have to to keep the invasion at bay. And you don't talk about it, you don't feed the enemy. "invasion"? "enemy"? Paranoid much? How many should we refuse to collect from boats??

I give in: how many?

If Hockey cried like a baby at the very thought of sending asylum seekers to Malaysia he must be beside himself with grief over this.
I wonder when he is going to slam Abbott and Morrison for what they are doing or was it all just a pathetic lie?   :D

Coalition is playing war games with refugees.

Treats them as escaped prisoners of war.

Hostile to the country they are escaping from.

Captured and handed back over.

Coalition is playing war games with refugees.

Treats them as escaped prisoners of war.

Hostile to the country they are escaping from.

Captured and handed back over.

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 5:04pm:

ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 3:10pm: |dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:42pm: austranger wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:35pm: |dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 2:30pm: ian wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 10:41am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Morrison officially calls boat people “illegal” in an attempt to convey the impression that they are criminals, when in fact they commit no offence at all by coming here as they do. Clever spin but Morrison  is correct. Just because no offence is committed does not make the fact of the entry legal, it is still an illegal act to enter without a valid visa. You and the author are under the illusion that an illegal act must have a penalty, this is incorrect. Actually, it isn't.  The Immigration Act officially declares it "unlawful" NOT "illegal".    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D "unlawful" NOT "illegal". Care to explain the difference, especially in how it applies in this circumstance?  8-) "Illegal" assumes a judgement has been made by a properly convened judicial authority against the individual concerned.  In this case, the Immigration Review Tribunal. "Unlawful" simply states that it is against the law.  No judgement has been made as to whether or not the individual is guilty of the offence they are being charged with.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D totally incorrect, as I stated, simply because an act is illegal does not make it bound to a judgement or a penalty. Its quite clear that anyone who enters australia without a valid visa is doing so illegally despite the fact there is  no penalty prescribed by law. We are not talking about "an act" we are talking about how the perpetrator is described. You may have noticed how the ABC describes a person who has allegedly committed a criminal act - they use the word "allegedly" for a reason, a legal reason.  You cannot describe a person as a criminal unless they have been convicted of a criminal offence, otherwise they'll sue the pants off you. Same goes for Asylum Seekers.  They have not been convicted of any illegal act.  They may have committed an "unlawful" act but they haven't been convicted of anything. As it is, coming to Australia and seeking Asylum as you have been told many times is not an illegal act.  Arriving by boat without documentation, is an unlawful act.  If you fail to produce the documentation required and your claim for Asylum is disallowed, then you can be described as an "illegal immigrant".  NOT BEFORE.  This is basic law.  Go put the Dunce's Hat on, sit on the stool in the corner.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 5:04pm:

We are not talking about "an act" we are talking about how the perpetrator is described. You may have noticed how the ABC describes a person who has allegedly committed a criminal act - they use the word "allegedly" for a reason, a legal reason.  You cannot describe a person as a criminal unless they have been convicted of a criminal offence, otherwise they'll sue the pants off you. Same goes for Asylum Seekers.  They have not been convicted of any illegal act.  They may have committed an "unlawful" act but they haven't been convicted of anything. As it is, coming to Australia and seeking Asylum as you have been told many times is not an illegal act.  Arriving by boat without documentation, is an unlawful act.  If you fail to produce the documentation required and your claim for Asylum is disallowed, then you can be described as an "illegal immigrant".  NOT BEFORE.  This is basic law.  Go put the Dunce's Hat on, sit on the stool in the corner.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

any person who enters australia without a valid visa does so illegally, this may not make them a criminal however it is still an illegal act. How do we know this I hear you ask. Simples, the crime of people smuggling depends on their human cargo being transported illegally, without the illegal entry the crime of people smuggling can not be proved. we currently have a large number of people incarcerated for people smuggling. Greggary cant seem to grasp this, I hope you can.

Whatever happens at sea stays at sea, seems like a good outcome any way you poke it.

Reality check, word is out that the huge majority just won't make it to Manus Island let alone Australia and the clientele has dried up, good one for Aus and its long suffering taxpayers.

Remember the days of Labor and the armada of boats lining up for our handouts? Bad dream? More like a bloody nightmare.

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:22pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 5:04pm: We are not talking about "an act" we are talking about how the perpetrator is described. You may have noticed how the ABC describes a person who has allegedly committed a criminal act - they use the word "allegedly" for a reason, a legal reason.  You cannot describe a person as a criminal unless they have been convicted of a criminal offence, otherwise they'll sue the pants off you. Same goes for Asylum Seekers.  They have not been convicted of any illegal act.  They may have committed an "unlawful" act but they haven't been convicted of anything. As it is, coming to Australia and seeking Asylum as you have been told many times is not an illegal act.  Arriving by boat without documentation, is an unlawful act.  If you fail to produce the documentation required and your claim for Asylum is disallowed, then you can be described as an "illegal immigrant".  NOT BEFORE.  This is basic law.  Go put the Dunce's Hat on, sit on the stool in the corner.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D any person who enters australia without a valid visa does so illegally, this may not make them a criminal however it is still an illegal act.

Incorrect.

Entering without a visa is not proscribed in any piece of Australian legislation.

In order for something to be illegal, it must be proscribed in an Act.  This is a simple fact.  Not my opinion: a legal fact.

That's the way it is.  I thought we were all clear on this.

red baron wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:52pm:

Whatever happens at sea stays at sea, seems like a good outcome any way you poke it. Reality check, word is out that the huge majority just won't make it to Manus Island let alone Australia and the clientele has dried up, good one for Aus and its long suffering taxpayers. Remember the days of Labor and the armada of boats lining up for our handouts? Bad dream? More like a bloody nightmare.

Hang on Mr Baron.  This Operation Sovereign Borders is not about that.  It is all about ensuring women and children and families don't drown at sea after paying Achmed to jump on a leaky boat to head to Australia.  It is all about that because Mr Abbott told us it was.  Please keep that in mind, thank you very much.

ian wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:22pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 5:04pm: We are not talking about "an act" we are talking about how the perpetrator is described. You may have noticed how the ABC describes a person who has allegedly committed a criminal act - they use the word "allegedly" for a reason, a legal reason.  You cannot describe a person as a criminal unless they have been convicted of a criminal offence, otherwise they'll sue the pants off you. Same goes for Asylum Seekers.  They have not been convicted of any illegal act.  They may have committed an "unlawful" act but they haven't been convicted of anything. As it is, coming to Australia and seeking Asylum as you have been told many times is not an illegal act.  Arriving by boat without documentation, is an unlawful act.  If you fail to produce the documentation required and your claim for Asylum is disallowed, then you can be described as an "illegal immigrant".  NOT BEFORE.  This is basic law.  Go put the Dunce's Hat on, sit on the stool in the corner.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D any person who enters australia without a valid visa does so illegally, this may not make them a criminal however it is still an illegal act. How do we know this I hear you ask. Simples, the crime of people smuggling depends on their human cargo being transported illegally, without the illegal entry the crime of people smuggling can not be proved. we currently have a large number of people incarcerated for people smuggling. Greggary cant seem to grasp this, I hope you can.

Another lie from ian.

I have said, on several occasions, that people smuggling is illegal.  I have never said that it is not a crime.

People smuggling is proscribed in a piece of Australian legislation.  As such, it is an illegal act.

Entering without a visa, however, is not proscribed in any piece of Australian legislation.  Therefore, it is not illegal.

I thought everyone was clear on this.

Tell you what I'll keep in mind Aussie, the fact that Tony Abbott has plugged that bloody, great, wide gaping hole up north. That's what I'll keep in mind.

One of the few things his Government have got right.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:53pm:

ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:22pm: |dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 5:04pm: We are not talking about "an act" we are talking about how the perpetrator is described. You may have noticed how the ABC describes a person who has allegedly committed a criminal act - they use the word "allegedly" for a reason, a legal reason.  You cannot describe a person as a criminal unless they have been convicted of a criminal offence, otherwise they'll sue the pants off you. Same goes for Asylum Seekers.  They have not been convicted of any illegal act.  They may have committed an "unlawful" act but they haven't been convicted of anything. As it is, coming to Australia and seeking Asylum as you have been told many times is not an illegal act.  Arriving by boat without documentation, is an unlawful act.  If you fail to produce the documentation required and your claim for Asylum is disallowed, then you can be described as an "illegal immigrant".  NOT BEFORE.  This is basic law.  Go put the Dunce's Hat on, sit on the stool in the corner.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D any person who enters australia without a valid visa does so illegally, this may not make them a criminal however it is still an illegal act. Incorrect. Entering without a visa is not proscribed in any piece of Australian legislation. In order for something to be illegal, it must be proscribed in an Act.  This is a simple fact.  Not my opinion: a legal fact. That's the way it is.  I thought we were all clear on this.

Actually it IS proscribed by UN legislation...

Well done Morrison. Edward De Bono would be proud of your marvellous lateral thinking ability.

Go hard son, your nation needs you

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:53pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:22pm: |dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 5:04pm: We are not talking about "an act" we are talking about how the perpetrator is described. You may have noticed how the ABC describes a person who has allegedly committed a criminal act - they use the word "allegedly" for a reason, a legal reason.  You cannot describe a person as a criminal unless they have been convicted of a criminal offence, otherwise they'll sue the pants off you. Same goes for Asylum Seekers.  They have not been convicted of any illegal act.  They may have committed an "unlawful" act but they haven't been convicted of anything. As it is, coming to Australia and seeking Asylum as you have been told many times is not an illegal act.  Arriving by boat without documentation, is an unlawful act.  If you fail to produce the documentation required and your claim for Asylum is disallowed, then you can be described as an "illegal immigrant".  NOT BEFORE.  This is basic law.  Go put the Dunce's Hat on, sit on the stool in the corner.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D any person who enters australia without a valid visa does so illegally, this may not make them a criminal however it is still an illegal act. Incorrect. Entering without a visa is not proscribed in any piece of Australian legislation. In order for something to be illegal, it must be proscribed in an Act.  This is a simple fact.  Not my opinion: a legal fact. That's the way it is.  I thought we were all clear on this. Actually it IS proscribed by UN legislation...

"UN legislation"?

Really?

Please continue ...

Gizmo:


Quote:

Actually it IS proscribed by UN legislation...

1.  What is the it to which you refer?

2.  What is the legislation to which you refer?

http://forums.starcitizenbase.com/public/style_emoticons/default/popcorn.gif

So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry.
Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:21pm:

Gizmo: Quote: Actually it IS proscribed by UN legislation... 1.  What is the it to which you refer? 2.  What is the legislation to which you refer?

Well it's not anything like 'proscibed'

austranger wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal.

Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa?

Not too much to ask, surely.

If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal.

Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed?

So, over to you ...

Refugee council warns Tamil asylum seekers' lives in danger amid reports Australia handing them back to Sri Lankan navy


The Tamil Refugee Council claims at least 11 people who Australia has reportedly handed over to the Sri Lankan navy have been tortured by that country's intelligence services.

It has been a week since the Tamil community, refugee supporters and the media last heard from a boat close to Christmas Island carrying 153 Tamil asylum seekers.

They reportedly are, or have been, aboard an Australian Customs ship and, despite having claims for protection, will reportedly be, or have been, handed over to the Sri Lankan navy.

Tamil Refugee Council spokesman Aran Mylvaganam says he has spoken to a relative of people who were on the boat.

"There were at least 11 people on this boat who had been arrested by Sri Lanka's intelligence forces and had been tortured," Mr Mylvaganam said.

If they are handed over to the Sri Lankan authorities we are certain their lives are in danger.
Tamil Refugee Council spokesman Aran Mylvaganam
He said the 11 would appear to have genuine refugee claims, and there must have been more people on the ship in a similar situation.

"There was at least a lot more, but 11 people have been accused of being members of the Tamil Tigers and were tortured by the Sri Lankan army.

"He [the relative] knows them. He was a close friend of these 11 people but he has at least five relatives on this boat who had been harassed by the Sri Lankan intelligence agencies in the past."

Asked if any on board were Tamil Tigers, Mr Mylvaganam said that was unclear.

"We don't know it and he doesn't know it, but they were accused of being members of the Tamil Tigers.

"They fled Sri Lanka to a refugee camp in India and from there got on a boat and came to Australia. If they are handed over to the Sri Lankan authorities we are certain their lives are in danger.

"Those who have been tortured in the past are at higher risk of facing more problems of the Sri Lanka intelligence agency. We are very worried.

"We have now got more information about these refugees and we know that if we don't keep an eye on them, the Sri Lankan authorities will torture them."

www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-04/tamil-asylum-seekers-flee-sri-lankan-after-torture/5573180

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 9:25am:

Stop the lies Morriscum! Silence on missing asylum seeker boat a disgrace to the nation

;D

I never knew there were so many rats in the nation's silos! Self-hating anti-Westerners who can't wait for the International Socialists to tear down the national borders and allow the Third and Fourth World to come swamping the West like a biblical plague.

I'm thinking of setting up a little candle-lit shrine in the corner of the lounge-room to Abbott and Scott Morrison for the miracles they have performed in just their short time in office.

Little translucent red glass cups with flickering candles inside. Scrolls with gold lettering proclaiming their divine status as miracle workers. Joss-sticks, incense and myrrh. The Whole 9 yards.  :)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:36pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:21pm: Gizmo: Quote: Actually it IS proscribed by UN legislation... 1.  What is the it to which you refer? 2.  What is the legislation to which you refer? Well it's not anything like 'proscibed'

Gizmo, they were pretty direct and simple questions arising from what you posted.  Answers?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Stop the lies Morriscum! Silence on missing asylum seeker boat a disgrace to the nation ;D I never knew there were so many rats in the nation's silos! Self-hating anti-Westerners who can't wait for the International Socialists to tear down the national borders and allow the Third and Fourth World to come swamping the West like a biblical plague. I'm thinking of setting up a little candle-lit shrine in the corner of the lounge-room to Abbott and Scott Morrison for the miracles they have performed in just their short time in office. Little translucent red glass cups with flickering candles inside. Scrolls with gold lettering proclaiming their divine status as miracle workers. Joss-sticks, incense and myrrh. The Whole 9 yards.  :)

Come on Walter!  Turn it up!  Mr Abbott's sole interest and intent is to save women, children and families drowning in Achmed's leaky boat while they take the risky voyage to Australia.  That is what this is all about, yeas?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Stop the lies Morriscum! Silence on missing asylum seeker boat a disgrace to the nation ;D I never knew there were so many rats in the nation's silos! Self-hating anti-Westerners who can't wait for the International Socialists to tear down the national borders and allow the Third and Fourth World to come swamping the West like a biblical plague. I'm thinking of setting up a little candle-lit shrine in the corner of the lounge-room to Abbott and Scott Morrison for the miracles they have performed in just their short time in office. Little translucent red glass cups with flickering candles inside. Scrolls with gold lettering proclaiming their divine status as miracle workers. Joss-sticks, incense and myrrh. The Whole 9 yards.  :)

Tell us, Larry, why do you think denying asylum seekers asylum is a good thing?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:53pm: ian wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 7:22pm: |dev|null wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 5:04pm: We are not talking about "an act" we are talking about how the perpetrator is described. You may have noticed how the ABC describes a person who has allegedly committed a criminal act - they use the word "allegedly" for a reason, a legal reason.  You cannot describe a person as a criminal unless they have been convicted of a criminal offence, otherwise they'll sue the pants off you. Same goes for Asylum Seekers.  They have not been convicted of any illegal act.  They may have committed an "unlawful" act but they haven't been convicted of anything. As it is, coming to Australia and seeking Asylum as you have been told many times is not an illegal act.  Arriving by boat without documentation, is an unlawful act.  If you fail to produce the documentation required and your claim for Asylum is disallowed, then you can be described as an "illegal immigrant".  NOT BEFORE.  This is basic law.  Go put the Dunce's Hat on, sit on the stool in the corner.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D any person who enters australia without a valid visa does so illegally, this may not make them a criminal however it is still an illegal act. Incorrect. Entering without a visa is not proscribed in any piece of Australian legislation. In order for something to be illegal, it must be proscribed in an Act.  This is a simple fact.  Not my opinion: a legal fact. That's the way it is.  I thought we were all clear on this. Actually it IS proscribed by UN legislation...

Continue ...

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Stop the lies Morriscum! Silence on missing asylum seeker boat a disgrace to the nation ;D I never knew there were so many rats in the nation's silos! Self-hating anti-Westerners who can't wait for the International Socialists to tear down the national borders and allow the Third and Fourth World to come swamping the West like a biblical plague. I'm thinking of setting up a little candle-lit shrine in the corner of the lounge-room to Abbott and Scott Morrison for the miracles they have performed in just their short time in office. Little translucent red glass cups with flickering candles inside. Scrolls with gold lettering proclaiming their divine status as miracle workers. Joss-sticks, incense and myrrh. The Whole 9 yards.  :)

Worshipping false idols, Herbie?  You'll be drummed out of the Judeo-Christian Defence League!   ;D

The Abbott government has drawn up an additional little proviso to the matter of Australia accepting asylum-seekers who arrive here conventionally or by 'irregular' means ~ which effectively says that if the culture of the person is deemed to be incompatible with Australian values, the option to refuse permanent residence may then be exercised.

Okay, I confess! I've lost my copy of the relevant piece that showed this new inclusion in the rules.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 9:05pm:

The Abbott government has drawn up an additional little proviso to the matter of Australia accepting asylum-seekers who arrive here conventionally or by 'irregular' means ~ which effectively says that if the culture of the person is deemed to be incompatible with Australian values, the option to refuse permanent residence may then be exercised. Okay, I confess! I've lost my copy of the relevant piece that showed this new inclusion in the rules.

Why would they bother doing that?
Everybody knows they shot them and dumped them overboard days ago.

Herbert the Confessor sounds like an honourable title, I'd go with it if I were you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:56pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Stop the lies Morriscum! Silence on missing asylum seeker boat a disgrace to the nation ;D I never knew there were so many rats in the nation's silos! Self-hating anti-Westerners who can't wait for the International Socialists to tear down the national borders and allow the Third and Fourth World to come swamping the West like a biblical plague. I'm thinking of setting up a little candle-lit shrine in the corner of the lounge-room to Abbott and Scott Morrison for the miracles they have performed in just their short time in office. Little translucent red glass cups with flickering candles inside. Scrolls with gold lettering proclaiming their divine status as miracle workers. Joss-sticks, incense and myrrh. The Whole 9 yards.  :) Tell us, Larry, why do you think denying asylum seekers asylum is a good thing?

If they were, it would be a bad thing. They are not, though.  There is no civil war in Sri Lanka. In any case, if they boarded those boats in Tamil Nadu in India, they are country shoppers.
That's why they are booted back.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ...

So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant?

Yeas.   Tony's on the money here.  No refoulment at all.  Onya Tone, you bewdy.

Link.


Quote:

The Tamil Refugee Council claims at least 11 people who Australia has reportedly handed over to the Sri Lankan navy have been tortured by that country's intelligence services.

Soren wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

If they were, it would be a bad thing. They are not, though.  There is no civil in Sri Lanka..

And that is why every country not currently undergoing a civil war cannot possibly have any legitimate refugees.  Sorry every international conflict, not good enough for Ozpol forums poster Soren.

Soren wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:56pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 9:25am: Stop the lies Morriscum! Silence on missing asylum seeker boat a disgrace to the nation ;D I never knew there were so many rats in the nation's silos! Self-hating anti-Westerners who can't wait for the International Socialists to tear down the national borders and allow the Third and Fourth World to come swamping the West like a biblical plague. I'm thinking of setting up a little candle-lit shrine in the corner of the lounge-room to Abbott and Scott Morrison for the miracles they have performed in just their short time in office. Little translucent red glass cups with flickering candles inside. Scrolls with gold lettering proclaiming their divine status as miracle workers. Joss-sticks, incense and myrrh. The Whole 9 yards.  :) Tell us, Larry, why do you think denying asylum seekers asylum is a good thing? If they were, it would be a bad thing. They are not, though.  There is no civil in Sri Lanka. In any case, if they boarded those boats in Tamil Nadu in India, they are country shoppers. That's why they are booted back.

They are claiming asylum.

What part of that don't you understand?

Soren wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant?

Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant.

What on earth are you talking about, Soren?

What have you been drinking tonight?

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:26pm:

Yeas.   Tony's on the money here.  No refoulment at all.  Onya Tone, you bewdy. Link. Quote: The Tamil Refugee Council claims at least 11 people who Australia has reportedly handed over to the Sri Lankan navy have been tortured by that country's intelligence services.

yes, lets delve in to this claim made by
Quote:

Tamil Refugee Council spokesman Aran Mylvaganam says he has spoken to a relative of people who were on the boat.

He has spoken to a relative of one of these people and knows all about their current circumstances. But when asked about other claims
Quote:

Asked if any on board were Tamil Tigers, Mr Mylvaganam said that was unclear.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 11:33pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. What on earth are you talking about, Soren? What have you been drinking tonight?

Sorry, that was me. I made a deposit in the milk bottle. It must have fermented.

The old boy should feel better in the morning.

bummer

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:56pm:

Tell us, Larry, why do you think denying asylum seekers asylum is a good thing?

'Asylum-seekers' ~ my arse!

This country's own Foreign Minister Bob Carr said they're nothing but economic migrants who want to shop at Coles and Woolies while on the dole or a DSP rort!

And the Abbott gov has just now put a little proviso in their policy manifesto that says cultural compatibility will now ... for the first time since Menzies ... be part of the criteria for acceptance for Australian citizenship.

That is an epochal shift away from the bum-kissing sycophancy of Political Correctness that now see our jails bulging with The Usual Suspects.

It looks like Abbott has decided to give the UN the two-finger salute.

If it's being done onboard RAN or Customs vessels, they're Aust territory, hence nothing illegal about it.

if we have the right to cancel passports of so called aussie citizens... then we can do this......

WE DO HAVE RIGHTS as well as anyone else....

or do the bleeding hearts think we should not cancel passports either... >:( >:( >:(

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:59am:

If it's being done onboard RAN or Customs vessels, they're Aust territory, hence nothing illegal about it.

illegal?? how can they possibly assess a claim on a ship after asking only 4 questions?  :D :D :D

cods wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:02am:

if we have the right to cancel passports of so called aussie citizens... then we can do this...... WE DO HAVE RIGHTS as well as anyone else.... or do the bleeding hearts think we should not cancel passports either... >:( >:( >:(

but we don't have a right to cancell Australian passports .... keep up ol girl.

Aussie wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:26pm:

Yeas.   Tony's on the money here.  No refoulment at all.  Onya Tone, you bewdy. Link. Quote: The Tamil Refugee Council claims at least 11 people who Australia has reportedly handed over to the Sri Lankan navy have been tortured by that country's intelligence services.

Some of these Tamils are war criminals from their 23 year civil war. Tamils would stop a bus in the countryside ... order the people out ... and then execute those who they didn't think were on their side.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:57am:

This country's own Foreign Minister Bob Carr said they're nothing but economic migrants

Ah yes, he did didn't he?  Well then I guess that matter will have been investigated and found in his favour?  Oh dear, have a look...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-14/no-evidence-bob-carr-economic-migrants/4821544
http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/28/bob-carr/are-boat-people-economic-migrants/
http://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-asylum-seekers-really-economic-migrants-15601

Is there any evidence to suggest they are economic migrants as you say?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:04am:

Some of these Tamils are war criminals from their 23 year civil war. Tamils would stop a bus in the countryside ... order the people out ... and then execute those who they didn't think were on their side.

Key word highlighted.  Somehow I don't think the one year old on the recent turned back boat was involved.

This trend for using technology to circumvent laws that has been allowed to continue due to misguided assumptions that technology is some kind of natural process of evolution we have to adhere to.

More social Darwinist idealogy eroding our principles.

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:07am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 8:04am: Some of these Tamils are war criminals from their 23 year civil war. Tamils would stop a bus in the countryside ... order the people out ... and then execute those who they didn't think were on their side. Key word highlighted.  Somehow I don't think the one year old on the recent turned back boat was involved.

War criminals have children and grandchildren.

And economic migrants have children and grandchildren.

Incidentally, Sydney is well on its way to becoming another Bombay. We're being swamped by them.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:22am:

Stratos wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 8:07am: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 8:04am: Some of these Tamils are war criminals from their 23 year civil war. Tamils would stop a bus in the countryside ... order the people out ... and then execute those who they didn't think were on their side. Key word highlighted.  Somehow I don't think the one year old on the recent turned back boat was involved. War criminals have children and grandchildren.

shall we jail them too?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:22am:

War criminals have children and grandchildren.

Yes, that are not guilty of war crimes.  This isn't the Old Testament.


Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:22am:

And economic migrants have children and grandchildren.

Aye, as does literally every culture on earth.  Not sure what your point is.

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:32am:

Not sure what your point is.

that's OK, neither's he!

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:32am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 8:22am: War criminals have children and grandchildren. Yes, that are not guilty of war crimes.  This isn't the Old Testament. Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 8:22am: And economic migrants have children and grandchildren. Aye, as does literally every culture on earth.  Not sure what your point is.

Asylum-seekers not found to be genuine are being returned home with their children.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:45am:

Asylum-seekers not found to be genuine are being returned home with their children.

Technically, their claims should be separate.  If as you are suggesting, that their relatives are war criminals (which by the way you have provided zero evidence for), then surely the best thing to do would be to accept the children's blatant reason for asylum and ship the actual guilty people off to the hague.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ...

On 1 November 2011 the Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 was introduced into Parliament.[119] The purpose of the Bill was to amend the Migration Act to clarify the meaning of the phrase ‘no lawful right to come to Australia’. The Bill inserts a provision with retrospective application that sets out the circumstances in which an unlawful non-citizen has no lawful right to come to Australia for the purposes of Subdivision A (people smuggling and related offences). Essentially, these circumstances are if the person does not hold a visa that is in effect or does not fall within any of the existing exceptions contained in section 42 of the Migration Act. The provision also clarifies that reference to a non-citizen includes a non-citizen who is seeking protection or asylum whether or not Australia has, or may owe them, protection obligations.

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 42
Visa essential for travel

             (1)  Subject to subsections (2), (2A) and (3), a non-citizen must not travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect.

Note:          A maritime crew visa is generally permission to travel to Australia only by sea (see section 38B).

             (2)  Subsection (1) does not apply to an allowed inhabitant of the Protected Zone travelling to a protected area in connection with traditional activities.

          (2A)  Subsection (1) does not apply to a non-citizen in relation to travel to Australia:

                     (a)  if the travel is by a New Zealand citizen who holds and produces a New Zealand passport that is in force; or

                     (b)  if the travel is by a non-citizen who holds and produces a passport that is in force and is endorsed with an authority to reside indefinitely on Norfolk Island; or

                     (c)  if:

                              (i)  the non-citizen is brought to the migration zone under subsection 245F(9) of this Act or 72(4) of the Maritime Powers Act 2013 ; and

                             (ii)  the non-citizen is a person who would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen; or

                    (ca)  the non-citizen is brought to Australia under section 198B; or

                     (d)  if:

                              (i)  the non-citizen has been removed under section 198 to another country but has been refused entry by that country; and

                             (ii)  the non-citizen travels to Australia as a direct result of that refusal; and

                            (iii)  the non-citizen is a person who would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen; or

                     (e)  if:

                              (i)  the non-citizen has been removed under section 198; and

                             (ii)  before the removal the High Court, the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court had made an order in relation to the non-citizen, or the Minister had given an undertaking to the High Court, the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court in relation to the non-citizen; and

                            (iii)  the non-citizen's travel to Australia is required in order to give effect to the order or undertaking; and

                            (iv)  the Minister has made a declaration that this paragraph is to apply in relation to the non-citizen's travel; and

                             (v)  the non-citizen is a person who would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen; or

                      (f)  if:

                              (i)  the travel is from Norfolk Island to Australia; and

                             (ii)  the Minister has made a declaration that this paragraph is to apply in relation to the non-citizen's travel; and

                            (iii)  the non-citizen is a person who would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen.

             (3)  The regulations may permit a specified non-citizen or a non-citizen in a specified class to travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect.

             (4)  Nothing in subsection (2A) or (3) is to be taken to affect the non-citizen's status in the migration zone as an unlawful non-citizen.

Note:          Section 189 provides that an unlawful non-citizen in the migration zone must be detained.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:04am:

Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Yeas.   Tony's on the money here.  No refoulment at all.  Onya Tone, you bewdy. Link. Quote: The Tamil Refugee Council claims at least 11 people who Australia has reportedly handed over to the Sri Lankan navy have been tortured by that country's intelligence services. Some of these Tamils are war criminals from their 23 year civil war. Tamils would stop a bus in the countryside ... order the people out ... and then execute those who they didn't think were on their side.

Im  calling bs on the torture claim anyway, no valid source on the claim.

Repeat

On 1 November 2011 the Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 was introduced into Parliament.[119] The purpose of the Bill was to amend the Migration Act to clarify the meaning of the phrase ‘no lawful right to come to Australia’.

   (iii)  the non-citizen is a person who would, if in the migration zone, be an unlawful non-citizen; or

On 30 October 2012, the Australian Labor Party federal parliamentary caucus resolved to excise the entire Australian mainland from the migration zone, in order to remove any incentive for asylum seekers travelling from Indonesia to try to reach the mainland instead of the previously excised territories which are closer to Indonesia.
On May 16, 2013, Parliament passed a law to excise the mainland itself from the migration zone, an unprecedented act.]

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 8:52am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 8:45am: Asylum-seekers not found to be genuine are being returned home with their children. Technically, their claims should be separate.  If as you are suggesting, that their relatives are war criminals (which by the way you have provided zero evidence for), then surely the best thing to do would be to accept the children's blatant reason for asylum and ship the actual guilty people off to the hague.

***

Admiral Thisara Samarasinghe, the Sri Lankan High Commissioner to Australia:


"THISARA SAMARASINGHE: I have not been specifically advised. I have seen the media and the policy of the Australian Government is that need not be any Sri Lankan asylum seekers. If they do not meet the criteria for refugee status, they will be sent back. Evidence is available to you, Tony, over 1,000 have already been repatriated, including about plus 100-plus voluntary repatriations. So this is a practically possible venture and I expect them to be sent back because I do not consider there's any Sri Lankan should leave Sri Lankan shores and ask for refugee status in any country.

"TONY JONES: OK. As you say, around 1,000 have been sent back. 5,000 plus have not been sent back yet and their situation is still to be determined. Now, if they are considered by the Australian Government to be genuine refugees, do you accept they have a right to remain in Australia because they are in fear of their lives or have - are in fear of suffering human rights abuse in Sri Lanka?

THISARA SAMARASINGHE: That is not a acceptable situation to say that there is human right abuse or fear. They need not come to Australia if they fear for life. There is much closer destination if they have to go. And people have gone to other destinations and they have returned from such destinations after the conflict was over. So it is mainly economic opportunities and front organisation in many countries are encouraging the human traffickers, the criminals. It's a criminal mechanism that is taking place supported by terrorists, drug traffickers and human smugglers".

link


And then once again, if you place no credibility upon Australia's recent Labor Foreign Minister declaring openly that these Sri Lankans are economic migrants, then perhaps you should take it up with him, and not me.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

And then once again, if you place no credibility upon Australia's recent Labor Foreign Minister declaring openly that these Sri Lankans are economic migrants, then perhaps you should take it up with him, and not me.

Bob Carr has never come out with any evidence, and I have provided you with three fact finding sources, all of which say that his claim is devoid of evidence.

My claim is not one based on assumption, but on the findings of three separate reports done into the very statement you are claiming as truth with nothing to back it up. 


Quote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-14/no-evidence-bob-carr-economic-migrants/4821544 http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/28/bob-carr/are-boat-people-economic-migrants/ http://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-asylum-seekers-really-economic-migrants-15601

In case you missed my post before.


Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

I do not consider there's any Sri Lankan should leave Sri Lankan shores and ask for refugee status in any country.

And like that he's lost me  That statement is completely farcical.

Who made it concrete that every Tamil in the world is under threat of death?

hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:38am:

Who made it concrete that every Tamil in the world is under threat of death?

Nobody, and I doubt you will find anyone arguing this.  However, Tamils are a persecuted minority and I believe their claims (like anyone) should be assessed, and that handing them back to a government which is known to persecute them without conducting the proper checks is wrong.

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:45am:

hermoine wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:38am: Who made it concrete that every Tamil in the world is under threat of death? Nobody, and I doubt you will find anyone arguing this.  However, Tamils are a persecuted minority and I believe their claims (like anyone) should be assessed, and that handing them back to a government which is known to persecute them without conducting the proper checks is wrong.

As I understand their backgrounds are being checked and many just don't have grounds to stay in Australia.

hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:52am:

As I understand their backgrounds are being checked and many just don't have grounds to stay in Australia.

What are you basing this on?  The validity of their claims I mean

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:54am:

hermoine wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:52am: As I understand their backgrounds are being checked and many just don't have grounds to stay in Australia. What are you basing this on?  The validity of their claims I mean

So you believe that most of these people have grounds to stay here then?

hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:59am:

So you believe that most of these people have grounds to stay here then?

Where did I say that?  better question, why are you trying to change the subject?

I'll humour you and answer regardless:  I think their claims should be properly processed.

Back to you:


Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:54am:

What are you basing this on?  The validity of their claims I mean

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:07pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:59am: So you believe that most of these people have grounds to stay here then? Where did I say that?  better question, why are you trying to change the subject? I'll humour you and answer regardless:  I think their claims should be properly processed. Back to you: Stratos wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:54am: What are you basing this on?  The validity of their claims I mean

So properly processing to you means they are granted asylum?

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:07pm:

What are you basing this on?  The validity of their claims I mean

Come on, stop avoiding the question Hermione.  This is the third time you have been asked now.


hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:

So properly processing to you means they are granted asylum?

Oh look, more things no-one said.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 11:33pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant.

Good.

That's why they are not allwed in without them.

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:32am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:11am: And then once again, if you place no credibility upon Australia's recent Labor Foreign Minister declaring openly that these Sri Lankans are economic migrants, then perhaps you should take it up with him, and not me. Bob Carr has never come out with any evidence, and I have provided you with three fact finding sources, all of which say that his claim is devoid of evidence.

I'll trust Bob Carr on this one. He had sources that don't get typed up as URL's for the general public to access on the Internet. And he would have had phone calls from well-placed people who were close to the action.

Not everything gets written down. He was right there with Ministerial Clearance to hear everything that was being said by ASIO and other insiders.

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:32am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:11am: In case you missed my post before. [quote author=Herbert link=1404330771/110#110 date=1404522676]I do not consider there's any Sri Lankan should leave Sri Lankan shores and ask for refugee status in any country. And like that he's lost me  That statement is completely farcical.

And then, of course ~ and most tellingly ~ there is the huge mainland Indian state of Tamil Nadu just across the water from Sri Lanka.

Refugees from Sri Lanka go to Tamil Nadu if they haven't been involved in war crimes.

Refugees who are escaping from trial for war crimes go to ... Australia.

Veterans who have patrolled Australia's borders looking for asylum seekers are among those who can now get online counselling if they are traumatised by their experience.Veterans' Affairs Minister Michael Ronaldson launched the 24-hour counselling website at the South Australian RSL congress on Saturday. (Sky-News)

Only problem is, it not exist! It not have a name! It Ministers bullshit!

Veterans who have patrolled Australia's borders looking for asylum seekers are among those who can now get online counselling if they are traumatised by their experience.Veterans' Affairs Minister Michael Ronaldson launched the 24-hour counselling website at the South Australian RSL congress on Saturday. (Sky-News)

Only problem is, it not exist! It not have a name! It Ministers bullshit!

Soren wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them.

... unless they're seeking asylum, of course.

hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:

So properly processing to you means they are granted asylum?

How about starting with not not breaking international laws?

____ wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 5:52am:

Asylum seekers are reportedly being secretly screened at sea via video link, potentially breaching international law. One Sri Lankan naval official has confirmed that some hopeful refugees will be transferred into Sri Lankan custody at sea after being asked just four basic questions, although another Sri Lankan official denied the procedure. Fairfax Media reports the asylum seekers are being asked their name, country of origin, where they had come from and why they had left before their claim for asylum is considered, but lawyer Julian Burnside says Australia could be guilty of refoulement. Non-refoulement is a key facet of refugee law, regarding protection of refugees from being returned to areas where their lives or freedoms could be threatened. "It is very clear the department is screening people to get them out as fast as possible and not with a view to assess whether they are refugees," Mr Burnside said. Director of Human Rights Watch Elaine Pearson also questioned the practice, calling it "not only highly disturbing, but probably unlawful". Christmas Island local councillor Gordon Thomson on Wednesday called on the federal government to confirm the accuracy of reports that asylum seekers had been transferred from Australian custody. "It's a very, very, very disturbing story, if it's true," he told AAP. https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/24374328/australia-assessing-refugees-at-sea/

Good job Abbott.
You know your on the right track when the head left wing handwringer from HRW is "disturbed".
And I suspect she is going to be "disturbed" for some years whilst the Coalition continues to put people smugglers out of business.
I believe that asking foreigners those four questions is an exercise in basic common sense given their lack of ID.
It's a bit hard to process someone if you don't know who they are or where they come from.
And given Labor's benefit of the doubt policy was sensibly removed by Scott Morrison, the questions are reasonable under the circumstances.
And the sooner these country shoppers are choofed off elsewhere, the sooner the government can get back to looking after the country.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:40pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course.

Incorrect, there is no law which states asylum seekers are legally or lawfully allowed to enter australia. You must have a sore arse by now with all the kicking I have been giving it but you dont seem to learn.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 1:52pm:

Stratos wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:32am: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:11am: In case you missed my post before. [quote author=Herbert link=1404330771/110#110 date=1404522676]I do not consider there's any Sri Lankan should leave Sri Lankan shores and ask for refugee status in any country. And like that he's lost me  That statement is completely farcical. And then, of course ~ and most tellingly ~ there is the huge mainland Indian state of Tamil Nadu just across the water from Sri Lanka. Refugees from Sri Lanka go to Tamil Nadu if they haven't been involved in war crimes. Refugees who are escaping from trial for war crimes go to ... Australia.

seems logical to me herbert.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 2:40pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course. Incorrect, there is no law which states asylum seekers are legally or lawfully allowed to enter australia.

And nobody said there was.

Back in your box.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:03pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:52pm: And then, of course ~ and most tellingly ~ there is the huge mainland Indian state of Tamil Nadu just across the water from Sri Lanka. Refugees from Sri Lanka go to Tamil Nadu if they haven't been involved in war crimes. Refugees who are escaping from trial for war crimes go to ... Australia. seems logical to me herbert.

Australia is the final destination of a ratline escape route for Sri Lankan war criminals. The High Commissioner to Australia said this around two years ago when the Sri Lankan boat people began to arrive.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:40pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course.

Bullshit.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 2:40pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course.

Bullshit.

DaS Energy wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:39pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 2:40pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course. Bullshit.

No, quite true.

Are you suggesting that no asylum seeker has ever made it into Australia without a passport and visa?

You wouldn't be that silly, would you?

I can assure you many have been allowed in.

Would you like to reconsider your response?

Herbert, you have literally no evidence for any of your claims, other than the thrice debunked statement by Carr. 

by ALL reports it appears Malaysia and Aust have a very good working relationship

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 4:18pm:

Herbert, you have literally no evidence for any of your claims ...

That's Larry for ya    ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:41pm:

DaS Energy wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 3:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 2:40pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course. Bullshit. No, quite true. Are you suggesting that no asylum seeker has ever made it into Australia without a passport and visa? You wouldn't be that silly, would you? I can assure you many have been allowed in. Would you like to reconsider your response?

Nobody enters Australia without a visa, unless they Australian citizen.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:41pm:

DaS Energy wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 3:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 2:40pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course. Bullshit. No, quite true. Are you suggesting that no asylum seeker has ever made it into Australia without a passport and visa? You wouldn't be that silly, would you? I can assure you many have been allowed in. Would you like to reconsider your response?

Nobody enters Australia without a visa, unless they Australian citizen.

DaS Energy wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 4:31pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 3:41pm: DaS Energy wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 3:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 2:40pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course. Bullshit. No, quite true. Are you suggesting that no asylum seeker has ever made it into Australia without a passport and visa? You wouldn't be that silly, would you? I can assure you many have been allowed in. Would you like to reconsider your response? Nobody enters Australia without a visa, unless they Australian citizen.

Incorrect.

You really should have reconsidered your response.

Too late: it's out there now.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:05pm:

And nobody said there was. Back in your box.

yes , you did. You stated asylum seekers were allowed to enter australia without a valid passport and visa which would make their entry illegal, there is no law stating this. Back in your box. Your arse must hurt severley by now.

Stratos wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 4:18pm:

Herbert, you have literally no evidence for any of your claims, other than the thrice debunked statement by Carr.

To be quite honest, I don't have any kind of emotional, financial, or political stake in proving the truth or falsehood of this.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 5:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 3:05pm: And nobody said there was. Back in your box. yes , you did.

Incorrect, once again.

Scroll back and read my posts.

Telling lies is frowned upon in here, ian.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 2:40pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course. Incorrect, there is no law which states asylum seekers are legally or lawfully allowed to enter australia.

I've looked back through the thread, ian, and I can't find any posts by me where I say that there is a law which states asylum seekers are legally or lawfully allowed to enter Australia.

I know for a fact that there is no law which states asylum seekers are legally or lawfully allowed to enter Australia

Perhaps, though, you could provide a link to the post where I said that there is a law which states asylum seekers are legally or lawfully allowed to enter Australia.    :-/

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 5:56pm:

Stratos wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 4:18pm: Herbert, you have literally no evidence for any of your claims, other than the thrice debunked statement by Carr.  To be quite honest ...

What brought on this change?

DaS Energy wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:39pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 2:40pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course. Bullshit.

Afraid not.
Labor's benefit of the doubt policy that the Immigration department worked with for six years ensured Australia accepted thousands without visa or passports.
It sounds to me like a policy nightmare Bob Brown would have demanded from Rudd back in 2008 for the Greens continued support.
Which is why Scott Morrison after the last election cancelled that policy after labelling it a potential national security issue.

DaS Energy wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:39pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 2:40pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course. Bullshit.

Fact.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

ian wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 3:02pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 2:40pm: Soren wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 11:33pm: Soren wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:37pm: austranger wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:31pm: So far as I'm aware the immigration act requires that anyone entering Oz must have a current visa, and that those seeking to settle here permanently must first be assessed and granted right of entry. Therefore those forcing a landing anywhere here without such visa or approval are contravening the act, which is against the law, thus, illegal. Could you please provide a link to the Section of the relevant Act that proscribes entering without a visa? Not too much to ask, surely. If you can provide that, it would indeed show that entering without a visa is illegal. Because, as we all know, in order for something to be illegal it must be proscribed by an Act.  Agreed? So, over to you ... So why do you think they ask for your passport and visa at airport, Prickadonna, if such things are redundant? Nobody has ever said that passports and visas are redundant. Good. That's why they are not allwed in without them. ... unless they're seeking asylum, of course. Incorrect, there is no law which states asylum seekers are legally or lawfully allowed to enter australia. I've looked back through the thread, ian, and I can't find any posts by me where I say that there is a law which states asylum seekers are legally or lawfully allowed to enter Australia. I know for a fact that there is no law which states asylum seekers are legally or lawfully allowed to enter Australia Perhaps, though, you could provide a link to the post where I said that there is a law which states asylum seekers are legally or lawfully allowed to enter Australia.    :-/

heh heh. Thank you.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 9:18am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 8:04am: Aussie wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:26pm: Yeas.   Tony's on the money here.  No refoulment at all.  Onya Tone, you bewdy. Link. Quote: The Tamil Refugee Council claims at least 11 people who Australia has reportedly handed over to the Sri Lankan navy have been tortured by that country's intelligence services. Some of these Tamils are war criminals from their 23 year civil war. Tamils would stop a bus in the countryside ... order the people out ... and then execute those who they didn't think were on their side. Im  calling bs on the torture claim anyway, no valid source on the claim.

That torture occurs or that these particular people have been tortured?

Torture by the security services there is commonplace in Sri Lanka.  I've known a white Australian who was incarcerated and tortured by the Sri Lankan security services for witnessing a death squad at work, killing a Tamil student.

hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:52am:

Stratos wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:45am: hermoine wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:38am: Who made it concrete that every Tamil in the world is under threat of death? Nobody, and I doubt you will find anyone arguing this.  However, Tamils are a persecuted minority and I believe their claims (like anyone) should be assessed, and that handing them back to a government which is known to persecute them without conducting the proper checks is wrong. As I understand their backgrounds are being checked and many just don't have grounds to stay in Australia.

Really?  Care to provide evidence?   ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 1:43pm:

Stratos wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:32am: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:11am: And then once again, if you place no credibility upon Australia's recent Labor Foreign Minister declaring openly that these Sri Lankans are economic migrants, then perhaps you should take it up with him, and not me. Bob Carr has never come out with any evidence, and I have provided you with three fact finding sources, all of which say that his claim is devoid of evidence. I'll trust Bob Carr on this one. He had sources that don't get typed up as URL's for the general public to access on the Internet. And he would have had phone calls from well-placed people who were close to the action. Not everything gets written down. He was right there with Ministerial Clearance to hear everything that was being said by ASIO and other insiders.

If it isn't written down, Herbie, then it is hearsay and as such cannot be validated or be used in a court of law.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:26pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:52am: Stratos wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:45am: hermoine wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:38am: Who made it concrete that every Tamil in the world is under threat of death? Nobody, and I doubt you will find anyone arguing this.  However, Tamils are a persecuted minority and I believe their claims (like anyone) should be assessed, and that handing them back to a government which is known to persecute them without conducting the proper checks is wrong. As I understand their backgrounds are being checked and many just don't have grounds to stay in Australia. Really?  Care to provide evidence?   ::)

$5 says we'll see no evidence.

Both the former and current Foreign Ministers of Australia have declared Sri Lanka safe now.
Any shown in their background checks to be Lankan will be a bogus asylum seeker.

ian wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 3:03pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 1:52pm: Stratos wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:32am: Lord Herbert wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:11am: In case you missed my post before. [quote author=Herbert link=1404330771/110#110 date=1404522676]I do not consider there's any Sri Lankan should leave Sri Lankan shores and ask for refugee status in any country. And like that he's lost me  That statement is completely farcical. And then, of course ~ and most tellingly ~ there is the huge mainland Indian state of Tamil Nadu just across the water from Sri Lanka. Refugees from Sri Lanka go to Tamil Nadu if they haven't been involved in war crimes. Refugees who are escaping from trial for war crimes go to ... Australia. seems logical to me herbert.

Why do you assume that Tamils from Sri Lanka will not suffer persecution in Tamil Nadu?   ::)

You do realise that India is not a signatory of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and without the protection that officially recognised Asylum under that convention offers to an Asylum Seeker, the Asylum Seeker can be persecuted, be subject to arbitrary detention and deportation and of course, has no protection against exploitation.   Seems like a good reason not to see Asylum in India or any other non-signatory.   ::)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:31pm:

Both the former and current Foreign Ministers of Australia have declared Sri Lanka safe now. Any shown in their background checks to be Lankan will be a bogus asylum seeker.

Reality is somewhat different from the delusions they and it appears many here wish to live in.   ::)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:31pm:

Both the former and current Foreign Ministers of Australia have declared Sri Lanka safe now.

"Exercise a high degree of caution"

"We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Sri Lanka at this time because of the unpredictable security environment. Australians could inadvertently become victims of violence directed at others.

"Security forces maintain a visible presence throughout the country. Military and police checkpoints are present along some roads and road closures can occur without warning.

"You should avoid all demonstrations and large public gatherings as they may turn violent or be a target for politically-motivated attacks. Police have used tear gas in response to protests.

"In the Northern Province of Sri Lanka, which includes Mannar, Vavuniya, Mullaitivu, Kilinochichi and Jaffna Districts, post-conflict security force activity is ongoing.

"In both the Northern and Eastern Provinces you should stay on main roads and pay close attention to signs warning of danger from landmines."

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Sri_Lanka#

You'll find that for Morocco, Ecuador, Tunisia and South Africa.

Travel advice and accepting bogus asylum seekers is quite different.

Bob Carr was impressed with the work done by the Sri Lankans on reconciliation.
They are just economic migrants now. They aren't fleeing persecution at all.
I certainly don't want that lot coming anymore.

the illegals are headed fro NZ now

Wonder how long before NZ takes an effective position on illegals

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:46pm:

Travel advice and accepting bogus asylum seekers is quite different.

You said, and I quote, "both the former and current Foreign Ministers of Australia have declared Sri Lanka safe now."

I've provided evidence from the Government's web site clearly stating that it is not safe.

Man up, and admit when you and your Lib mates are wrong.

"We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in Sri Lanka at this time because of the unpredictable security environment. Australians could inadvertently become victims of violence directed at others."

Would you like to take a guess at who the "others" are?

I'll give you a hint, it's not the tourists.

Do you need some thinking music?

It's not a Liberal thing.
Bob Carr eased the policy on Sri Lanka on his visit.

He was right too. We don't them coming anymore.