Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions.

Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas?

You are an arsehole Abbott.

They stopped the boats ? Doesn't seem so  ::)

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 6:37am:

Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott.

The boats with illegal border crossers coming to AUSTRALIA you arsehole. Use your simple BS mind, or stick to driving cabs!

Resolute wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:58am:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. The boats with illegal border crossers coming to AUSTRALIA you arsehole. Use your simple BS mind, or stick to driving cabs!

Belay the abuse.

Abbott wanted to turn them back as a deterrent to stop them leaving so they did not perish at sea.

Clearly, they are still leaving and drowning.

Resolute wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:58am:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. The boats with illegal border crossers coming to AUSTRALIA you arsehole. Use your simple BS mind, or stick to driving cabs!

Not illegal to flee persecution across borders.


The abbott propaganda is crumbling and sinking into the rising ocean.

____ wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 9:37am:

Not illegal to flee persecution across borders. .

wrong. entering Australia without a valid visa is always illegal regardless of intent to seek asylum.

What is amusing is that the same lefties huffing and puffing in daily faux outrage will once again return to silence when labor is elected.

You won't hear a peep from them then about country shoppers on the other side of the world or drownings in the Mediterranean seas. 

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 9:45am:

____ wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:37am: Not illegal to flee persecution across borders. . wrong. entering Australia without a valid visa is always illegal regardless of intent to seek asylum.

Requesting asylum is not illegal in any way.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 10:13am:

rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:45am: ____ wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:37am: Not illegal to flee persecution across borders. . wrong. entering Australia without a valid visa is always illegal regardless of intent to seek asylum. Requesting asylum is not illegal in any way.

nobody said it was.

Tony is closing detention centres that were opened by labor and the Greens.

If the boats were still coming here we would need these detention centres opened by Labor and the Greens.

Six more detention centres closed saving hard working taxpayers $280 million.
theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/six-more-detention-centres-to-close/story-fn3dxiwe-1229609951014

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 9:45am:

____ wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:37am: Not illegal to flee persecution across borders. . wrong. entering Australia without a valid visa is always illegal regardless of intent to seek asylum.

are we playing this game again are we, one would've thought the nutties would've learnt after having their asses handed to them after each and every iteration.  You are wrong. It is *NOT* illegal.

Quote:

They stopped the boats???

from reaching safety.


Abbott bears guilt for the deaths of people who are killed by countries who follow his example.

Abbott set the standard. Now thousands die.

Add this to Abbott's legacy, as well as destroying any chance of halting climate change.

Julius Abbott wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 10:58am:

Quote: They stopped the boats??? from reaching safety. Abbott bears guilt for the deaths of people who re killed by countries who follow his example. Abbott set the standard. Now thousands die. Add this to Abbott's legacy, as well as destroying any chance of halting climate change.

You forgot about crying babies, and, those fading curtains.

They are all Abbott's legacy too!      :D

Lets not play parties on this one.

Labor started it, Liberals continued it, both have set up a disgusting system.

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 10:16am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 10:13am: rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:45am: ____ wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:37am: Not illegal to flee persecution across borders. . wrong. entering Australia without a valid visa is always illegal regardless of intent to seek asylum. Requesting asylum is not illegal in any way. nobody said it was.

You're new to the board, Rhino. People here have been saying it's illegal for years.

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 9:23am:

Resolute wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:58am: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. The boats with illegal border crossers coming to AUSTRALIA you arsehole. Use your simple BS mind, or stick to driving cabs! Belay the abuse. Abbott wanted to turn them back as a deterrent to stop them leaving so they did not perish at sea. Clearly, they are still leaving and drowning.

Yes Resolute he is an idiot and the topic is yet another shrill shout from the mental and self-deluded.
We all know what "stopping the boats" means, well those of us who are sane.
It's just a rev up from the troll ignore him like he deserves.

Julius Abbott wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 10:58am:

Quote: They stopped the boats??? from reaching safety. Abbott bears guilt for the deaths of people who re killed by countries who follow his example. Abbott set the standard. Now thousands die. Add this to Abbott's legacy, as well as destroying any chance of halting climate change.

What a dumb comment - climate change is a problem for the world, to blame Abbott just shows you have NFI and problable should shut the hell up.
::)

Stratos wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 11:11am:

Lets not play parties on this one. Labor started it, Liberals continued it, both have set up a disgusting system.

Tow the boats back was started by howard and restarted by Abbott the cretin.

HooYAY its FriYAY wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 12:30pm:

Julius Abbott wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 10:58am: Quote: They stopped the boats??? from reaching safety. Abbott bears guilt for the deaths of people who re killed by countries who follow his example. Abbott set the standard. Now thousands die. Add this to Abbott's legacy, as well as destroying any chance of halting climate change. What a dumb comment - climate change is a problem for the world, to blame Abbott just shows you have Absolutely No Idea and problable should shut the hell up. ::)

One would agree that the failure to halt climate change would the a shared responsibility amongst leaders who chose the politically easy decision of ignoring it.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 12:32pm:

HooYAY its FriYAY wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 12:30pm: Julius Abbott wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 10:58am: Quote: They stopped the boats??? from reaching safety. Abbott bears guilt for the deaths of people who re killed by countries who follow his example. Abbott set the standard. Now thousands die. Add this to Abbott's legacy, as well as destroying any chance of halting climate change. What a dumb comment - climate change is a problem for the world, to blame Abbott just shows you have Absolutely No Idea and problable should shut the hell up. ::) One would agree that the failure to halt climate change would the a shared responsibility amongst leaders who chose the politically easy decision of ignoring it.

2 dumb comments - any more?

HooYAY its FriYAY wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 12:33pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 12:32pm: HooYAY its FriYAY wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 12:30pm: Julius Abbott wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 10:58am: Quote: They stopped the boats??? from reaching safety. Abbott bears guilt for the deaths of people who re killed by countries who follow his example. Abbott set the standard. Now thousands die. Add this to Abbott's legacy, as well as destroying any chance of halting climate change. What a dumb comment - climate change is a problem for the world, to blame Abbott just shows you have Absolutely No Idea and problable should shut the hell up. ::) One would agree that the failure to halt climate change would the a shared responsibility amongst leaders who chose the politically easy decision of ignoring it. 2 dumb comments - any more?

I think all those years of doing nothing more than staring at a river has done u some irreversible damage :(

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 6:37am:

Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott.

what a stupid post and typical of a morally and intellectually bankrupt PUP supporter. Thailand, Malaysia and INdonesia are NOT australia - which is not really news to most of us.

Abbott stopped the boats and even Labor and the Greens admit that.  Only fools like PUP and other boofheads want to include boats from other countries en route to yet another country in the tally.

Abbott won. You lost.

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 9:23am:

Resolute wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:58am: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. The boats with illegal border crossers coming to AUSTRALIA you arsehole. Use your simple BS mind, or stick to driving cabs! Belay the abuse. Abbott wanted to turn them back as a deterrent to stop them leaving so they did not perish at sea. Clearly, they are still leaving and drowning.

Where? Cabby......

Resolute wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 1:06pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:23am: Resolute wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:58am: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. The boats with illegal border crossers coming to AUSTRALIA you arsehole. Use your simple BS mind, or stick to driving cabs! Belay the abuse. Abbott wanted to turn them back as a deterrent to stop them leaving so they did not perish at sea. Clearly, they are still leaving and drowning. Where? Cabby......

aussie is deeply scarred and needs to blame abbott for... everything.  Why do you think he is part of PUP, a party formed entirely out of bitter hatred and a desire for revenge?

longweekend58 wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 12:37pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. what a stupid post and typical of a morally and intellectually bankrupt PUP supporter. Thailand, Malaysia and INdonesia are NOT australia - which is not really news to most of us. Abbott stopped the boats and even Labor and the Greens admit that.  Only fools like PUP and other boofheads want to include boats from other countries en route to yet another country in the tally. Abbott won. You lost.

abbott won? what did he win?

didn't abbott say he would remove the pull factors that led these people to risk their lives ... maybe they're being 'pulled'  by Abbott animal magnetism  ;D ;D ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 10:45am:

rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:45am: ____ wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:37am: Not illegal to flee persecution across borders. . wrong. entering Australia without a valid visa is always illegal regardless of intent to seek asylum. are we playing this game again are we, one would've thought the nutties would've learnt after having their asses handed to them after each and every iteration.  You are wrong. It is *NOT* illegal.

No, I am not wrong. The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.  Theres  no exemption for anyone, indeed this is the basis of the ability of the government to detain  asylum seekers, the immigration act. if not for this then asylum seekers could not legally be detained. If you dont understand this then get a 12 year old to explain it to you.
Everyone who enters Australia without a valid visa does so illegally whether they are asylum seekers or not, you people need to recognise this fact and move on, it doesnt do your argument any good to keep quibbling over this fact. In fact, just makes you look rather puerile. And you wonder why those on the right think you are all retarded. There was even one of you  idiots some time ago arguing this was wrong because the act says unlawful instead of illegal.

Quote:

The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.

Would you mind linking the section?

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 2:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 12:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. what a stupid post and typical of a morally and intellectually bankrupt PUP supporter. Thailand, Malaysia and INdonesia are NOT australia - which is not really news to most of us. Abbott stopped the boats and even Labor and the Greens admit that.  Only fools like PUP and other boofheads want to include boats from other countries en route to yet another country in the tally. Abbott won. You lost. abbott won? what did he win? didn't abbott say he would remove the pull factors that led these people to risk their lives ... maybe they're being 'pulled'  by Abbott animal magnetism  ;D ;D ;D

its hard to argue with outcomes.  ZERO BOATS.  Howard and Abbott knew how to deal with this problem and proved it.

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 2:50pm:

Quote: The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally. Would you mind linking the section?

a bit of logic should suffice.  if it is not illegal to not have a visa, then having one would be optional, right?  try arriving in australia at an airport or port and see how it works out not to have one.

idiot.

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 2:41pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 10:45am: rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:45am: ____ wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:37am: Not illegal to flee persecution across borders. . wrong. entering Australia without a valid visa is always illegal regardless of intent to seek asylum. are we playing this game again are we, one would've thought the nutties would've learnt after having their asses handed to them after each and every iteration.  You are wrong. It is *NOT* illegal. No, I am not wrong. The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.  Theres  no exemption for anyone, indeed this is the basis of the ability of the government to detain  asylum seekers, the immigration act. if not for this then asylum seekers could not legally be detained. If you dont understand this then get a 12 year old to explain it to you. Everyone who enters Australia without a valid visa does so illegally whether they are asylum seekers or not, you people need to recognise this fact and move on, it doesnt do your argument any good to keep quibbling over this fact. In fact, just makes you look rather puerile. And you wonder why those on the right think you are all retarded. There was even one of you  idiots some time ago arguing this was wrong because the act says unlawful instead of illegal.

The criminal code partially defines murder as 'unlawful killing'.  Does that mean murder is not illegal but only unlawful? 

get over it folks. the words are 100% synonyms.

longweekend58 wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 3:11pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 2:50pm: Quote: The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally. Would you mind linking the section? a bit of logic should suffice.  if it is not illegal to not have a visa, then having one would be optional, right?  try arriving in australia at an airport or port and see how it works out not to have one. idiot.

I'm not, in this instance, looking for logic.  The poster:


Quote:

The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.

All I am asking for is a link to the section which states it so clearly.

Too much to ask?

longweekend58 wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 3:04pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 2:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 12:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. what a stupid post and typical of a morally and intellectually bankrupt PUP supporter. Thailand, Malaysia and INdonesia are NOT australia - which is not really news to most of us. Abbott stopped the boats and even Labor and the Greens admit that.  Only fools like PUP and other boofheads want to include boats from other countries en route to yet another country in the tally. Abbott won. You lost. abbott won? what did he win? didn't abbott say he would remove the pull factors that led these people to risk their lives ... maybe they're being 'pulled'  by Abbott animal magnetism  ;D ;D ;D its hard to argue with outcomes.  ZERO BOATS.  Howard and Abbott knew how to deal with this problem and proved it.

it's hard to argue anything with your head so firmly planted up your ar$e, but nevertheless you manage

someone did promise no more pull factors therefore no more drownings at sea? right?

longweekend58 wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 3:14pm:

'unlawful killing'.  Does that mean murder is not illegal but only unlawful?

no, it means that in some cases killing is legal  (eg. when shooting someone who is about to shoot you or when an executioner executes someone)

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 3:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:14pm: 'unlawful killing'.  Does that mean murder is not illegal but only unlawful? no, it means that in some cases killing is legal  (eg. when shooting someone who is about to shoot you or when an executioner executes someone)

you have an incredible ability to miss the point, something you do most of the time.  illegal and unlawful are IDENTICAL TERMS.

longweekend58 wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 3:58pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:14pm: 'unlawful killing'.  Does that mean murder is not illegal but only unlawful? no, it means that in some cases killing is legal  (eg. when shooting someone who is about to shoot you or when an executioner executes someone) you have an incredible ability to miss the point, something you do most of the time.  illegal and unlawful are IDENTICAL TERMS.

no, it is you who misses the point. Whilst killing is unlawful, as you can see from the examples given, it is not always illegal.

Not to worry longie, it's perfectly understandable that somebody with your sheat for brains is able to miss such a fine  (but nevertheless still valid) distinction

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 3:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:04pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 2:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 12:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. what a stupid post and typical of a morally and intellectually bankrupt PUP supporter. Thailand, Malaysia and INdonesia are NOT australia - which is not really news to most of us. Abbott stopped the boats and even Labor and the Greens admit that.  Only fools like PUP and other boofheads want to include boats from other countries en route to yet another country in the tally. Abbott won. You lost. abbott won? what did he win? didn't abbott say he would remove the pull factors that led these people to risk their lives ... maybe they're being 'pulled'  by Abbott animal magnetism  ;D ;D ;D its hard to argue with outcomes.  ZERO BOATS.  Howard and Abbott knew how to deal with this problem and proved it. it's hard to argue anything with your head so firmly planted up your back & side, but nevertheless you manage someone did promise no more pull factors therefore no more drownings at sea? right?

and there arent any.  or are you so anally retentive and idiotic that you want to blame abbott for drownings in other parts of the world on boats NOT heading to australia?

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 4:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:58pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:14pm: 'unlawful killing'.  Does that mean murder is not illegal but only unlawful? no, it means that in some cases killing is legal  (eg. when shooting someone who is about to shoot you or when an executioner executes someone) you have an incredible ability to miss the point, something you do most of the time.  illegal and unlawful are IDENTICAL TERMS. no, it is you who misses the point. Whilst killing is unlawful, as you can see from the examples given, it is not always illegal. Not to worry longie, it's perfectly understandable that somebody with your sheat for brains is able to miss such a fine  (but nevertheless still valid) distinction

your understanding of words is so bad.  even in the example you quoted (offtopic) killing in self-defence is both legal and lawful.  It is not one and not the other.  the words are IDENTICAL in meaning therefore interchangeable in any sentence or context.

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 6:37am:

Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott.

Gawd, you're stupid! Yes - they stopped the boats from coming here! That was the policy, that was achieved. End of story.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 4:40pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. Gawd, you're stupid! Yes - they stopped the boats from coming here! That was the policy, that was achieved. End of story.

The 'turn them back' policy was based on the premise that it would deter people from getting onto leaky boats, and drowning at sea.

That has now been proven to be a total flop.  The boats have not stopped, and how embarrassing is it that Indonesia and Malaysia are doing all the 'lifting' while Abbott does all the 'leaning?'

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 4:40pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. Gawd, you're stupid! Yes - they stopped the boats from coming here! That was the policy, that was achieved. End of story.

Exactly.  But the left are nothing but Alinsky attack dogs, they just keep on with their hate and lies. Vile cretins the lot.

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 3:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 2:50pm: Quote: The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally. Would you mind linking the section? a bit of logic should suffice.  if it is not illegal to not have a visa, then having one would be optional, right?  try arriving in australia at an airport or port and see how it works out not to have one. idiot. I'm not, in this instance, looking for logic.  The poster: [quote]The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.

All I am asking for is a link to the section which states it so clearly.

Too much to ask?
[/quote]you claim you are an ex lawyer. very well, this is something any lawyer would know straight off the bat. i could link it but the question i would ask is, why dont you know such a simple thing? You really arent aware that people who enter Australia without a visa do so illegally? Really? An ex lawyer doesnt know this? Even if you were the dumbest lawyer in the world a simple google would have given you the answer and saved anyone from questioning your credentials. So whats your game here?

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 4:40pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. Gawd, you're stupid! Yes - they stopped the boats from coming here! That was the policy, that was achieved. End of story.

correct. I think Ozzy is being deliberately stupid here for some reason. probably thinks he has some sort of obscure point to make.

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 5:53pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 2:50pm: Quote: The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally. Would you mind linking the section? a bit of logic should suffice.  if it is not illegal to not have a visa, then having one would be optional, right?  try arriving in australia at an airport or port and see how it works out not to have one. idiot. I'm not, in this instance, looking for logic.  The poster: [quote]The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally. All I am asking for is a link to the section which states it so clearly. Too much to ask?

you claim you are an ex lawyer. very well, this is something any lawyer would know straight off the bat. i could link it but the question i would ask is, why dont you know such a simple thing? You really arent aware that people who enter Australia without a visa do so illegally? Really? An ex lawyer doesnt know this? Even if you were the dumbest lawyer in the world a simple google would have given you the answer and saved anyone from questioning your credentials. So whats your game here?
[/quote]

hate.

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 5:53pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 2:50pm: Quote: The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally. Would you mind linking the section? a bit of logic should suffice.  if it is not illegal to not have a visa, then having one would be optional, right?  try arriving in australia at an airport or port and see how it works out not to have one. idiot. I'm not, in this instance, looking for logic.  The poster: [quote]The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally. All I am asking for is a link to the section which states it so clearly. Too much to ask?

you claim you are an ex lawyer. very well, this is something any lawyer would know straight off the bat. i could link it but the question i would ask is, why dont you know such a simple thing? You really arent aware that people who enter Australia without a visa do so illegally? Really? An ex lawyer doesnt know this? Even if you were the dumbest lawyer in the world a simple google would have given you the answer and saved anyone from questioning your credentials. So whats your game here?
[/quote]

Put up, Rhino.  Where is the link which supports your bold announcement?


Quote:

The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.

If you have no idea what LEGISLATION people are talking about, use Google and Fetch it yourself, Aussie, LLB.

Here's a hint

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

Neferti wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 6:58pm:

If you have no idea what LEGISLATION people are talking about, use Google and Fetch it yourself, Aussie, LLB. Here's a hint http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/

There ya go Rhino.  Someone else has done half the work so it should be easy for you to now link the section which supports this assertion of yours....


Quote:

The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.

Good one Nef, I would have done it, but as you know I'm ignoring the stupid Troll.

longweekend58 wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 4:02pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:04pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 2:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 12:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. what a stupid post and typical of a morally and intellectually bankrupt PUP supporter. Thailand, Malaysia and INdonesia are NOT australia - which is not really news to most of us. Abbott stopped the boats and even Labor and the Greens admit that.  Only fools like PUP and other boofheads want to include boats from other countries en route to yet another country in the tally. Abbott won. You lost. abbott won? what did he win? didn't abbott say he would remove the pull factors that led these people to risk their lives ... maybe they're being 'pulled'  by Abbott animal magnetism  ;D ;D ;D its hard to argue with outcomes.  ZERO BOATS.  Howard and Abbott knew how to deal with this problem and proved it. it's hard to argue anything with your head so firmly planted up your back & side, but nevertheless you manage someone did promise no more pull factors therefore no more drownings at sea? right? and there arent any.  or are you so anally retentive and idiotic that you want to blame abbott for drownings in other parts of the world on boats NOT heading to australia?

aren't any? asylum seekers are drowning everywhere.

Not heading to Australia? wasn't the preferred route to Malaysia through Indonesia and then to Australia, and we have thousands missing from Malaysia to Indonesia ... how can you say they're not heading to Australia? should they cross the North Pole first? :D :D :D

longweekend58 wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 4:06pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:58pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:14pm: 'unlawful killing'.  Does that mean murder is not illegal but only unlawful? no, it means that in some cases killing is legal  (eg. when shooting someone who is about to shoot you or when an executioner executes someone) you have an incredible ability to miss the point, something you do most of the time.  illegal and unlawful are IDENTICAL TERMS. no, it is you who misses the point. Whilst killing is unlawful, as you can see from the examples given, it is not always illegal. Not to worry longie, it's perfectly understandable that somebody with your sheat for brains is able to miss such a fine  (but nevertheless still valid) distinction your understanding of words is so bad.  even in the example you quoted (offtopic) killing in self-defence is both legal and lawful.  It is not one and not the other.  the words are IDENTICAL in meaning therefore interchangeable in any sentence or context.

killing is always UNLAWFUL. Self defense does not make it lawful, it makes it legal. You show me one law that says killing is lawful?

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Neferti wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:58pm: If you have no idea what LEGISLATION people are talking about, use Google and Fetch it yourself, Aussie, LLB. Here's a hint http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ There ya go Rhino.  Someone else has done half the work so it should be easy for you to now link the section which supports this assertion of yours.... Quote: The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.

I should imagine it would be much easier for an alleged ex lawyer to state whether I am correct or not. Am I correct Ozzy or not? You have 2 options here, run away as you have previously done or state a learned legal opinion, which is it?

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:06pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:58pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:14pm: 'unlawful killing'.  Does that mean murder is not illegal but only unlawful? no, it means that in some cases killing is legal  (eg. when shooting someone who is about to shoot you or when an executioner executes someone) you have an incredible ability to miss the point, something you do most of the time.  illegal and unlawful are IDENTICAL TERMS. no, it is you who misses the point. Whilst killing is unlawful, as you can see from the examples given, it is not always illegal. Not to worry longie, it's perfectly understandable that somebody with your sheat for brains is able to miss such a fine  (but nevertheless still valid) distinction your understanding of words is so bad.  even in the example you quoted (offtopic) killing in self-defence is both legal and lawful.  It is not one and not the other.  the words are IDENTICAL in meaning therefore interchangeable in any sentence or context. killing is always UNLAWFUL. Self defense does not make it lawful, it makes it legal. You show me one law that says killing is lawful?

come on John, ask the Lawyer. Surely he would know. I know and Im not a lawyer.

Neferti wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 6:58pm:

If you have no idea what LEGISLATION people are talking about, use Google and Fetch it yourself, Aussie, LLB. Here's a hint http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/

rather long document for one to search through, why don't you highlight the part you think is relevant?

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:13pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:06pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:58pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:14pm: 'unlawful killing'.  Does that mean murder is not illegal but only unlawful? no, it means that in some cases killing is legal  (eg. when shooting someone who is about to shoot you or when an executioner executes someone) you have an incredible ability to miss the point, something you do most of the time.  illegal and unlawful are IDENTICAL TERMS. no, it is you who misses the point. Whilst killing is unlawful, as you can see from the examples given, it is not always illegal. Not to worry longie, it's perfectly understandable that somebody with your sheat for brains is able to miss such a fine  (but nevertheless still valid) distinction your understanding of words is so bad.  even in the example you quoted (offtopic) killing in self-defence is both legal and lawful.  It is not one and not the other.  the words are IDENTICAL in meaning therefore interchangeable in any sentence or context. killing is always UNLAWFUL. Self defense does not make it lawful, it makes it legal. You show me one law that says killing is lawful? come on John, ask the Lawyer. Surely he would know. I know and Im not a lawyer.

no need, common sense is usually sufficient

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:11pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:03pm: Neferti wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:58pm: If you have no idea what LEGISLATION people are talking about, use Google and Fetch it yourself, Aussie, LLB. Here's a hint http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ There ya go Rhino.  Someone else has done half the work so it should be easy for you to now link the section which supports this assertion of yours.... Quote: The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally. I should imagine it would be much easier for an alleged ex lawyer to state whether I am correct or not. Am I correct Ozzy or not? You have 2 options here, run away as you have previously done or state a learned legal opinion, which is it?

you are incorrect, the act specifically stipulates exemptions to that statement. Those seeking asylum are not illegal, according to the act, they are unlawful

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:14pm:

no need, common sense is usually sufficient

apparently not in this case.

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:15pm:

rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:03pm: Neferti wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:58pm: If you have no idea what LEGISLATION people are talking about, use Google and Fetch it yourself, Aussie, LLB. Here's a hint http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ There ya go Rhino.  Someone else has done half the work so it should be easy for you to now link the section which supports this assertion of yours.... Quote: The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally. I should imagine it would be much easier for an alleged ex lawyer to state whether I am correct or not. Am I correct Ozzy or not? You have 2 options here, run away as you have previously done or state a learned legal opinion, which is it? you are incorrect, the act specifically stipulates exemptions to that statement. Those seeking asylum are not illegal, according to the act, they are unlawful

but do you know the difference between the 2 John? Wheres ozzy gone?

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:17pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:15pm: rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:03pm: Neferti wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:58pm: If you have no idea what LEGISLATION people are talking about, use Google and Fetch it yourself, Aussie, LLB. Here's a hint http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ There ya go Rhino.  Someone else has done half the work so it should be easy for you to now link the section which supports this assertion of yours.... Quote: The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally. I should imagine it would be much easier for an alleged ex lawyer to state whether I am correct or not. Am I correct Ozzy or not? You have 2 options here, run away as you have previously done or state a learned legal opinion, which is it? you are incorrect, the act specifically stipulates exemptions to that statement. Those seeking asylum are not illegal, according to the act, they are unlawful but do you know the difference between the 2 John? Wheres ozzy gone?

I've enough of an idea to know that something can be unlawful without being illegal

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:16pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:14pm: no need, common sense is usually sufficient apparently not in this case.

even in this case, it's just that longie and common sense don't mix ... it's like mixing water with oil

Heres what ABC fact check states


Quote:

Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:11pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:03pm: Neferti wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:58pm: If you have no idea what LEGISLATION people are talking about, use Google and Fetch it yourself, Aussie, LLB. Here's a hint http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ There ya go Rhino.  Someone else has done half the work so it should be easy for you to now link the section which supports this assertion of yours.... Quote: The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally. I should imagine it would be much easier for an alleged ex lawyer to state whether I am correct or not. Am I correct Ozzy or not? You have 2 options here, run away as you have previously done or state a learned legal opinion, which is it?

I'm not here to give legal opinions, but when others do, that attracts my interest, and I'll generally post questions.  Post the link, Rhino....the one which shows the section of that Act which supports this bold legal opinion of yours....


Quote:

The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.

Put up, Rhino.

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:19pm:

Heres what ABC fact check states Quote: Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

bye bye Ozzy  ;)

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:19pm:

Heres what ABC fact check states Quote: Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

Did you read all of that link, Rhino?  Would you like me to highlight those parts of it which demonstrate how wrong you are when you assert this:


Quote:

The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.

Quote:

bye bye Ozzy

Running away are you, Rhino?

poll added

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:02pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:04pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 2:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 12:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. what a stupid post and typical of a morally and intellectually bankrupt PUP supporter. Thailand, Malaysia and INdonesia are NOT australia - which is not really news to most of us. Abbott stopped the boats and even Labor and the Greens admit that.  Only fools like PUP and other boofheads want to include boats from other countries en route to yet another country in the tally. Abbott won. You lost. abbott won? what did he win? didn't abbott say he would remove the pull factors that led these people to risk their lives ... maybe they're being 'pulled'  by Abbott animal magnetism  ;D ;D ;D its hard to argue with outcomes.  ZERO BOATS.  Howard and Abbott knew how to deal with this problem and proved it. it's hard to argue anything with your head so firmly planted up your back & side, but nevertheless you manage someone did promise no more pull factors therefore no more drownings at sea? right? and there arent any.  or are you so anally retentive and idiotic that you want to blame abbott for drownings in other parts of the world on boats NOT heading to australia? aren't any? asylum seekers are drowning everywhere. Not heading to Australia? wasn't the preferred route to Malaysia through Indonesia and then to Australia, and we have thousands missing from Malaysia to Indonesia ... how can you say they're not heading to Australia? should they cross the North Pole first? :D :D :D

Good grief....  no visa you are illegal... that is clear and certain.
Claim Asylum and under the stupid UN convention you cannot be subjected to penalties under the law re that illegality, unless you are found to not be a genuine Refugee.
If people in boats are drowning or in trouble outside our Territorial waters they are not our responsibility.
Honestly John, wake up to yourself and ditch the hatred that fogs your brain. :D :D :D

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:29pm:

poll added

That Poll will not protect you, Rhino.  Post the link to the section of the Act which supports this bold assertion of yours.  (Do that, and I'll vote 'yes,' in your Poll.)


Quote:

The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.

Grendel wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:31pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:02pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:04pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 2:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 12:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. what a stupid post and typical of a morally and intellectually bankrupt PUP supporter. Thailand, Malaysia and INdonesia are NOT australia - which is not really news to most of us. Abbott stopped the boats and even Labor and the Greens admit that.  Only fools like PUP and other boofheads want to include boats from other countries en route to yet another country in the tally. Abbott won. You lost. abbott won? what did he win? didn't abbott say he would remove the pull factors that led these people to risk their lives ... maybe they're being 'pulled'  by Abbott animal magnetism  ;D ;D ;D its hard to argue with outcomes.  ZERO BOATS.  Howard and Abbott knew how to deal with this problem and proved it. it's hard to argue anything with your head so firmly planted up your back & side, but nevertheless you manage someone did promise no more pull factors therefore no more drownings at sea? right? and there arent any.  or are you so anally retentive and idiotic that you want to blame abbott for drownings in other parts of the world on boats NOT heading to australia? aren't any? asylum seekers are drowning everywhere. Not heading to Australia? wasn't the preferred route to Malaysia through Indonesia and then to Australia, and we have thousands missing from Malaysia to Indonesia ... how can you say they're not heading to Australia? should they cross the North Pole first? :D :D :D Good grief....  no visa you are illegal... that is clear and certain. Claim Asylum and under the stupid UN convention you cannot be subjected to penalties under the law re that illegality, unless you are found to not be a genuine Refugee. If people in boats are drowning or in trouble outside our Territorial waters they are not our responsibility. Honestly John, wake up to yourself and ditch the hatred that fogs your brain. :D :D :D

Law of the Sea (not the C who runs the show here).... all must come to the aid of those in peril on the sea......

zipa de doo dah zipa de day, my o my what a wonderful day
*walks away whistling*  8-)

Quote:

Good grief....  no visa you are illegal... that is clear and certain.

Rubbish. "You" are not illegal at all.  Your entry into Australia may not have met all the requirements of the Act....but 'you' are not illegal.

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:37pm:

zipa de doo dah zipa de day, my o my what a wonderful day *walks away whistling*  8-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UMV36zYs58

.

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:35pm:

Grendel wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:31pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 4:02pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 3:04pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 2:01pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 12:37pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Horseshit.  7,000 believed to be at sea and Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have now agreed to accept them on land with some conditions. Stopped the boats ey?  How  much egg on how many faces, and how right were those who insisted the boats were still leaving, and that people were still at risk on the high seas? You are an arsehole Abbott. what a stupid post and typical of a morally and intellectually bankrupt PUP supporter. Thailand, Malaysia and INdonesia are NOT australia - which is not really news to most of us. Abbott stopped the boats and even Labor and the Greens admit that.  Only fools like PUP and other boofheads want to include boats from other countries en route to yet another country in the tally. Abbott won. You lost. abbott won? what did he win? didn't abbott say he would remove the pull factors that led these people to risk their lives ... maybe they're being 'pulled'  by Abbott animal magnetism  ;D ;D ;D its hard to argue with outcomes.  ZERO BOATS.  Howard and Abbott knew how to deal with this problem and proved it. it's hard to argue anything with your head so firmly planted up your back & side, but nevertheless you manage someone did promise no more pull factors therefore no more drownings at sea? right? and there arent any.  or are you so anally retentive and idiotic that you want to blame abbott for drownings in other parts of the world on boats NOT heading to australia? aren't any? asylum seekers are drowning everywhere. Not heading to Australia? wasn't the preferred route to Malaysia through Indonesia and then to Australia, and we have thousands missing from Malaysia to Indonesia ... how can you say they're not heading to Australia? should they cross the North Pole first? :D :D :D Good grief....  no visa you are illegal... that is clear and certain. Claim Asylum and under the stupid UN convention you cannot be subjected to penalties under the law re that illegality, unless you are found to not be a genuine Refugee. If people in boats are drowning or in trouble outside our Territorial waters they are not our responsibility. Honestly John, wake up to yourself and ditch the hatred that fogs your brain. :D :D :D Law of the Sea (not the C who runs the show here).... all must come to the aid of those in peril on the sea......

Oh dear Law of the Sea...  you probably should read it.

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:19pm:

Heres what ABC fact check states Quote: Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

you missed this bit on that link

Experts contacted by ABC Fact Check say it is not appropriate to use "illegal" when specifically describing asylum seekers or refugees.

Professor Jane McAdam, director of the International Refugee and Migration Law Project at the University of New South Wales, says that "asylum seekers are not illegal under international law".

"By ratifying the Refugee Convention, governments agree precisely not to treat asylum seekers as illegal," Professor McAdam said.

Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence".

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:04pm:

rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:19pm: Heres what ABC fact check states Quote: Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372 you missed this bit on that link Experts contacted by ABC Fact Check say it is not appropriate to use "illegal" when specifically describing asylum seekers or refugees. Professor Jane McAdam, director of the International Refugee and Migration Law Project at the University of New South Wales, says that "asylum seekers are not illegal under international law". "By ratifying the Refugee Convention, governments agree precisely not to treat asylum seekers as illegal," Professor McAdam said. Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence".

Ferking hell, Mr Smith! I had not finished baiting my bloody hook!

Oh well, the horse has bolted now, as has Rhino.

Grendel wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:31pm:

Good grief....  no visa you are illegal... that is clear and certain.

the only thing certain is your level of stupidity ... an asylum seeker entering Australia without a visa is UNLAWFUL, not illegal


Grendel wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:31pm:

If people in boats are drowning or in trouble outside our Territorial waters they are not our responsibility.

then perhaps one shouldn't make such blanket statements.  :D :D :D


Grendel wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:31pm:

Honestly John, wake up to yourself and ditch the hatred that fogs your brain.

Hatred? ;D ;D ;D no hatred Goose, merely applying the same standard to him that you and every other dickhead applied to labor for 6 yrs. You can only wonder what it's like with no fog.

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:04pm:

Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence".[/i]

Er.... he just did.... use them in the same sentence.

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:04pm:

rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:19pm: Heres what ABC fact check states Quote: Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372 you missed this bit on that link Experts contacted by ABC Fact Check say it is not appropriate to use "illegal" when specifically describing asylum seekers or refugees. Professor Jane McAdam, director of the International Refugee and Migration Law Project at the University of New South Wales, says that "asylum seekers are not illegal under international law". "By ratifying the Refugee Convention, governments agree precisely not to treat asylum seekers as illegal," Professor McAdam said. Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence".

a refugee advocate saying it is " not appropriate" doesnt negate the facts John. Good try though. Better than Ozzys . At least you had something. And you arent even a  lawyer. How about that.

Illegal means specifically proscribed by law, unlawful means not authorised by law.

Both can be punishable by law.





The verdict

Mr Morrison is correct.

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

That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:08pm:

Grendel wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:31pm: Good grief....  no visa you are illegal... that is clear and certain. the only thing certain is your level of stupidity ... an asylum seeker entering Australia without a visa is UNLAWFUL, not illegal .

Fair enough. whats the difference John? I mean the entire legal fraternity in Australia says they are illegal, what do you know that they dont?

Soren wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:32pm:

Illegal means specifically proscribed by law, unlawful means not authorised by law. Both can be punishable by law. The verdict Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

Yes. why is anyone even arguing this? Ozzys just made himself out to be a right wally, now Johns doing the same. why do these people argue black is white? Its beyond me  :-/

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:30pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:04pm: rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:19pm: Heres what ABC fact check states Quote: Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372 you missed this bit on that link Experts contacted by ABC Fact Check say it is not appropriate to use "illegal" when specifically describing asylum seekers or refugees. Professor Jane McAdam, director of the International Refugee and Migration Law Project at the University of New South Wales, says that "asylum seekers are not illegal under international law". "By ratifying the Refugee Convention, governments agree precisely not to treat asylum seekers as illegal," Professor McAdam said. Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence". a refugee advocate saying it is " not appropriate" doesnt negate the facts John. Good try though. Better than Ozzys . At least you had something. And you arent even a  lawyer. How about that.

1.  This bloke is what?  "Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence".

2.  Have you found that link yet, Rhino....or do I (and we all) conclude you have no idea what you are talking about?

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:36pm:

Soren wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:32pm: Illegal means specifically proscribed by law, unlawful means not authorised by law. Both can be punishable by law. The verdict Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372 Yes. why is anyone even arguing this? Ozzys just made himself out to be a right wally, now Johns doing the same. why do these people argue black is white? Its beyond me  :-/

I reckon most things are.  You are just a bloke who posts silly little ignorant prat like crap while shooting your mouth off with garbage, and when push comes to shove, you bolt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bWyhj7siEY

Belay the abuse Long John.......arrrrrr. Ya f'king idiot!

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:33pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:08pm: Grendel wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:31pm: Good grief....  no visa you are illegal... that is clear and certain. the only thing certain is your level of stupidity ... an asylum seeker entering Australia without a visa is UNLAWFUL, not illegal . Fair enough. whats the difference John? I mean the entire legal fraternity in Australia says they are illegal, what do you know that they dont?

Actually one shouldn't listen to Johnboy you'll get led astray.

The Convention says Johnboy...

"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. (Article 31, (1))

Gee look at that...  ILLEGAL ENTRY...  sorry Johnboy I keep trying to educate you but you never listen and never learn.  BTW we went over this very same thing ages ago...  YOU NEVER LEARN!!! ::) ::) ::)

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:08pm:

Grendel wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:31pm: Good grief....  no visa you are illegal... that is clear and certain. the only thing certain is your level of stupidity ... an asylum seeker entering Australia without a visa is UNLAWFUL, not illegal Grendel wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:31pm: If people in boats are drowning or in trouble outside our Territorial waters they are not our responsibility. then perhaps one shouldn't make such blanket statements.  :D :D :D Grendel wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:31pm: Honestly John, wake up to yourself and ditch the hatred that fogs your brain. Hatred? ;D ;D ;D no hatred Goose, merely applying the same standard to him that you and every other dickhead applied to labor for 6 yrs. You can only wonder what it's like with no fog. YOU NEED TO STOP LYING ABOUT ME ON THIS SITE... Now run away and lie about someone else.

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:42pm:

rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:36pm: Soren wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:32pm: Illegal means specifically proscribed by law, unlawful means not authorised by law. Both can be punishable by law. The verdict Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372 Yes. why is anyone even arguing this? Ozzys just made himself out to be a right wally, now Johns doing the same. why do these people argue black is white? Its beyond me  :-/ I reckon most things are.  You are just a bloke who posts silly little ignorant prat like crap while shooting your mouth off with garbage, and when push comes to shove, you bolt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bWyhj7siEY

But illegal entrants is still correct.

Ho ho ho, and a bottle of rum!


Quote:

YOU NEED TO STOP LYING ABOUT ME ON THIS SITE... Now run away and lie about someone else.

You lie about me and others on this site, so why ought people not at least be truthful about you on this site?

Quote:

But illegal entrants is still correct.

It all boils down to grammatical semantics and each side will choose the phrase which suits their agenda.

These people are not illegal or illegals.  Their entry in some context may be described as illegal.

The bigots choose to blur the distinction.

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:42pm:

rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:36pm: Soren wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:32pm: Illegal means specifically proscribed by law, unlawful means not authorised by law. Both can be punishable by law. The verdict Mr Morrison is correct. Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country. That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372 Yes. why is anyone even arguing this? Ozzys just made himself out to be a right wally, now Johns doing the same. why do these people argue black is white? Its beyond me  :-/ I reckon most things are.  You are just a bloke who posts silly little ignorant prat like crap while shooting your mouth off with garbage, and when push comes to shove, you bolt.

Nah, I owned you. No need for anything more. A lawyer who doesnt know people need a visa to enter Australia legally and who doesnt know the difference between unlawful and illegal. Its like you wanted to be owned. Seems youre getting a tad emotional. Wonder why that is.

check the poll out Ozzy. Lol. And here you are , still emotionally wound up engaging in semantics.

It's ok, Gambia, the smallest nation in West Africa will take the Rohingya asylum seekers.

Cambodia, the poorest, most corrupt country in SE Asia will take their first lot of asylum seekers from Manus Island.

Australia, it's time for a nappy change.

You have a funny way of marking your own homework.


Quote:

A lawyer who doesnt know people need a visa to enter Australia legally and who doesnt know the difference between unlawful and illegal. Its like you wanted to be owned.

You will not find one post made by me here which asserts any position about the need for a visa or (other than the comment about semantics) on the difference between unlawful and illegal.

What I did ask, and what you have yet to produce, is for a live link to the section of the Act which backs up your bold assertion:


Quote:

The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.

Will you be producing that anytime soon, Rhino?

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 7:13pm:

Neferti wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:58pm: If you have no idea what LEGISLATION people are talking about, use Google and Fetch it yourself, Aussie, LLB. Here's a hint http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ rather long document for one to search through, why don't you highlight the part you think is relevant?

You could start by looking at the sections about VISAS.  ;)

Division 3--Visas for non-citizens

Neferti wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 8:31am:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:13pm: Neferti wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 6:58pm: If you have no idea what LEGISLATION people are talking about, use Google and Fetch it yourself, Aussie, LLB. Here's a hint http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ rather long document for one to search through, why don't you highlight the part you think is relevant? You could start by looking at the sections about VISAS.  ;) Division 3--Visas for non-citizens

instead of telling me where to look, why don't you simply put up the relevant section?

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:30pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:04pm: rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:19pm: Heres what ABC fact check states Quote: Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372 you missed this bit on that link Experts contacted by ABC Fact Check say it is not appropriate to use "illegal" when specifically describing asylum seekers or refugees. Professor Jane McAdam, director of the International Refugee and Migration Law Project at the University of New South Wales, says that "asylum seekers are not illegal under international law". "By ratifying the Refugee Convention, governments agree precisely not to treat asylum seekers as illegal," Professor McAdam said. Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence". a refugee advocate saying it is " not appropriate" doesnt negate the facts John. Good try though. Better than Ozzys . At least you had something. And you arent even a  lawyer. How about that.

so I'm going to take your word for it over TWO professors of law? not in this lifetime I'm not :D :D

rhino wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 8:33pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:08pm: Grendel wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:31pm: Good grief....  no visa you are illegal... that is clear and certain. the only thing certain is your level of stupidity ... an asylum seeker entering Australia without a visa is UNLAWFUL, not illegal . Fair enough. whats the difference John? I mean the entire legal fraternity in Australia says they are illegal, what do you know that they dont?

what a load of rubbish ... i just put up quotes from two professors of law (members of the legal fraternity) that disagree with you

;D ;D ;D

http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/h/7/3/h/p/image.related.articleLeadNarrow.300x0.gh6oq1.png/1432250413334.jpg

John Smith wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:05am:

rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:30pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:04pm: rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:19pm: Heres what ABC fact check states Quote: Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372 you missed this bit on that link Experts contacted by ABC Fact Check say it is not appropriate to use "illegal" when specifically describing asylum seekers or refugees. Professor Jane McAdam, director of the International Refugee and Migration Law Project at the University of New South Wales, says that "asylum seekers are not illegal under international law". "By ratifying the Refugee Convention, governments agree precisely not to treat asylum seekers as illegal," Professor McAdam said. Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence". a refugee advocate saying it is " not appropriate" doesnt negate the facts John. Good try though. Better than Ozzys . At least you had something. And you arent even a  lawyer. How about that. so I'm going to take your word for it over TWO professors of law? not in this lifetime I'm not :D :D

there were some mighty fine legal distinctions made in those comments.  the second one simply said 'should not' ie an opinion, not law.  the first said asylum SEEKING was not illegal and no one said it was.  He carefully avoided the fact that entering australia outside of a designated arrival zone and without a visa is illegal.

they clearly hoped readers would be as stupid as most clearly are rather than people with the ability to think and see legal wording trying to make you think the opposite of the truth.

Neferti wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:28am:

;D ;D ;D http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/h/7/3/h/p/image.related.articleLeadNarrow.300x0.gh6oq1.png/1432250413334.jpg

I interpret that as putting shite on Abbott!

Therer is a difference between illegal and unlawful and it's very simple.

Unlawful is not a criminal act. Illegal is.

They are not synonyms. They are distinct words with distinct meanings.

Entering this country without a visa is not a criminal act, therefore not illegal.

mothra wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:23am:

Entering this country without a visa is not a criminal act, therefore not illegal.

It's illegal to enter without a valid visa.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:33am:

mothra wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:23am: Entering this country without a visa is not a criminal act, therefore not illegal. It's illegal to enter without a valid visa.

No it's not. It's unlawful.

mothra wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:34am:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:33am: mothra wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:23am: Entering this country without a visa is not a criminal act, therefore not illegal. It's illegal to enter without a valid visa. No it's not. It's unlawful.

unlawful = illegal

Baronvonrort wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:35am:

mothra wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:34am: Baronvonrort wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:33am: mothra wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:23am: Entering this country without a visa is not a criminal act, therefore not illegal. It's illegal to enter without a valid visa. No it's not. It's unlawful. unlawful = illegal

No it doesn't. 2 seperate words with 2 seperate meanings.

I've already explained that.

It is not a criminal act to enter this ciuntry without a visa.

Therefore it is not illegal.

Why is this so hard to understand? I could easily explain this to my children.

Has Tony Abbott stopped the boats? As far as we know boats have not reached Australia. Whether they are still leaving Indonesia is hidden behind a wall of secrecy labelled “operational matters”. Abbott tells us that the secrecy is important so that people smugglers are not given information about Australian patrols. I suspect the people smugglers don’t care, as long as they get their money and the people leave it is no longer their problem. It is not like the asylum seekers can go to consumer affairs if they don’t reach Australia.
As for the Rohingya Muslims fleeing Myanmar who are fleeing persecution, been forced to live in camps, discrimination so severe that it leads to deaths and a pervasive hatred by the Buddhist populace. They also have no citizenship so cannot get passports or visas. Leaving by land is also not an option as the borders have been blocked. Abbott’s idea is that these people who are fleeing this deplorable situation should be returned back to it.
Now Abbott is saying we will not accept any of the Rohingya refugees. What a hypocrite. When it came to asylum seekers already in Australia, Abbott was looking for a regional solution. When it comes to the region asking for help, Abbott’s solution is to throw a few million dollars at the problem and refuses to do anything else.

mothra wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:23am:

Therer is a difference between illegal and unlawful and it's very simple. Unlawful is not a criminal act. Illegal is. They are not synonyms. They are distinct words with distinct meanings. Entering this country without a visa is not a criminal act, therefore not illegal.

nearly got it. I see someones been googling. Not right though but nearly there.

mothra wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:39am:

Why is this so hard to understand? I could easily explain this to my children.

youd be wrong. Read your google link again.

mothra wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:39am:

It is not a criminal act to enter this ciuntry without a visa. Therefore it is not illegal. .

The migration act says it's illegal to try to enter without a visa.

I will go with the migration act over a internet nobody on this issue.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:43am:

mothra wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:39am: It is not a criminal act to enter this ciuntry without a visa. Therefore it is not illegal. . The migration act says it's illegal to try to enter without a visa. I will go with the migration act over a internet nobody on this issue.

Prove it. From what i have seen, it is very specifically using the word 'unlawful'.

Illegal would put us in violation of international law.

Think about it.

rhino wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:42am:

mothra wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:39am: Why is this so hard to understand? I could easily explain this to my children. youd be wrong. Read your google link again.

Not wrong. the words are not synonyms.

Its certainly  bringing out the idiots, including an alleged lawyer who apparently doesnt know a visa is required to enter the country.

mothra wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:47am:

rhino wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:42am: mothra wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:39am: Why is this so hard to understand? I could easily explain this to my children. youd be wrong. Read your google link again. Not wrong. the words are not synonyms.

didnt say they were. Its not difficult to understand , you nearly got there, keep trying.

rhino wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:47am:

Its certainly  bringing ou the idiots, including an alleged lawyer who apparently doesnt know a visa is required to enter the country.

You should check your poll again. Seems not everyone agrees with you.

And if you refuse to grasp the distinction between 2 wrods with different meanings then you are either belligerant or an idiot.

I tend to think a little from column a, a little from column b.

rhino wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:47am:

Its certainly  bringing out the idiots, including an alleged lawyer who apparently doesnt know a visa is required to enter the country.

I guess you are having a shot at me.  You will not find a post of mine here to back that up.

When will you provide the live link to the section of the Act which backs up this bold assertion of yours?


Quote:

The immigration act clearly states that anyone entering Austyralia without a valid visa does so illegally.

Having trouble finding it are you?

mothra wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:52am:

rhino wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:47am: Its certainly  bringing ou the idiots, including an alleged lawyer who apparently doesnt know a visa is required to enter the country. You should check your poll again. Seems not everyone agrees with you. And if you refuse to grasp the distinction between 2 wrods with different meanings then you are either belligerant or an idiot. I tend to think a little from column a, a little from column b.

I didnt say they had 2 different meanings. But you should have learnt the difference between the 2 before you posted. In this case they are interchangeable, but not in every case. that may give you a clue. I will put you out of your misery tonight if you still dont know. Damn i feel smart on this forum, not necassarily a good thing. Wish there was someone here who could offer me an intellectual challenge.

rhino wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 12:01pm:

mothra wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:52am: rhino wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:47am: Its certainly  bringing ou the idiots, including an alleged lawyer who apparently doesnt know a visa is required to enter the country. You should check your poll again. Seems not everyone agrees with you. And if you refuse to grasp the distinction between 2 wrods with different meanings then you are either belligerant or an idiot. I tend to think a little from column a, a little from column b. I didnt say they had 2 different meanings. But you should have learnt the difference between the 2 before you posted. In this case they are interchangeable, but not in every case. that may give you a clue. I will put you out of your misery tonight if you still dont know. Damn i feel smart on this forum, not necassarily a good thing. Wish there was someone here who could offer me an intellectual challenge.

You have the worst case of Dunning-Kruger i've ever come across.

If you were even a little bit smarter, you'd be embarrassed.

Baronvonrort wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:43am:

mothra wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:39am: It is not a criminal act to enter this ciuntry without a visa. Therefore it is not illegal. . The migration act says it's illegal to try to enter without a visa. I will go with the migration act over a internet nobody on this issue.

If something is illegal under an Act of Parliament it is also unlawful under the provisions of said Act.

And that's a fact!

Lisa Jones wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 12:19pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:43am: mothra wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:39am: It is not a criminal act to enter this ciuntry without a visa. Therefore it is not illegal. . The migration act says it's illegal to try to enter without a visa. I will go with the migration act over a internet nobody on this issue. If something is illegal under an Act of Parliament it is also unlawful under the provisions of said Act. And that's a fact!

Yes, but something unlawful isn't necessarily illegal.

Experts agree that assylum seekers are unlawful, not illegal.

People smuggling is illegal and to refer to it as such is fair but it must be stipulated that that is what is being referred to specifically as illegal.

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

Here's the link for the Cth Migration Act (1958).

You will note that this Act alone provides sufficient evidence for the swift execution of all lawyers on the basis that they are totally inept whilst being most competent in creating utter chaos for everyone around them.

Happy reading!

I'm off to grab a Panadol.

Post delay time again?

mothra wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:39am:

It is not a criminal act to enter this ciuntry without a visa. Therefore it is not illegal. Why is this so hard to understand? I could easily explain this to my children.

If Tony understood this, he'd have to call them unlawfuls.....it just doesn't have the same impact as illegals. You are right of course Mothra, not sure if the righties are dumb or just playing dumb.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 12:33pm:

I'm off to grab a Panadol.

Again? you're addicted to that stuff Lisa, it'll rot your kidneys and liver.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 12:33pm:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ Here's the link for the Cth Migration Act (1958). You will note that this Act alone provides sufficient evidence for the swift execution of all lawyers on the basis that they are totally inept whilst being most competent in creating utter chaos for everyone around them. Happy reading! I'm off to grab a Panadol.

The Migration Act was ammended in 1994 to replace the term "illegal entrants" with "unlawful non-citizen".

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 12:39pm:

mothra wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 11:39am: It is not a criminal act to enter this ciuntry without a visa. Therefore it is not illegal. Why is this so hard to understand? I could easily explain this to my children. If Tony understood this, he'd have to call them unlawfuls.....it just doesn't have the same impact as illegals. You are right of course Mothra, not sure if the righties are dumb or just playing dumb.

They're even starting polls to congratulate themselves now.

It's  a concern.

mothra wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 12:44pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 12:33pm: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/ Here's the link for the Cth Migration Act (1958). You will note that this Act alone provides sufficient evidence for the swift execution of all lawyers on the basis that they are totally inept whilst being most competent in creating utter chaos for everyone around them. Happy reading! I'm off to grab a Panadol. The Migration Act was ammended in 1994 to replace the term "illegal entrants" with "unlawful non-citizen".

Ahhh good point!

Under Paul Keating! 

Yes. I recall that now.

Important info for all debaters in this topic.

Thanks for that  :)

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 12:43pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 12:33pm: I'm off to grab a Panadol. Again? you're addicted to that stuff Lisa, it'll rot your kidneys and liver.

I average 2 Panadols per day.

If that's an addiction....well I'd love to see your take on my daily tea/coffee intake.

Tones and friends think it's ok to refer to what we refer to in our legislation as "unlawful non-citizens" as "illegal" because the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees itself uses the term "illegal entry". Interestingly, the same charter declares each country sovereign over their borders so technically, we should defer to Australian terminology which is, once more, " unlawful non-citizens.

This makes them (and maybe the more smug righties) think it's ok to use to use the term "illegal" because as you say Pansi, it just has a certain ring to it.

longweekend58 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:58am:

John Smith wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 10:05am: rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:30pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:04pm: rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:19pm: Heres what ABC fact check states Quote: Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372 you missed this bit on that link Experts contacted by ABC Fact Check say it is not appropriate to use "illegal" when specifically describing asylum seekers or refugees. Professor Jane McAdam, director of the International Refugee and Migration Law Project at the University of New South Wales, says that "asylum seekers are not illegal under international law". "By ratifying the Refugee Convention, governments agree precisely not to treat asylum seekers as illegal," Professor McAdam said. Professor Andreas Schloenhardt, from the University of Queensland law school took a similar view, saying "the terms 'asylum seeker' and 'illegal' should not be used together or in the same sentence". a refugee advocate saying it is " not appropriate" doesnt negate the facts John. Good try though. Better than Ozzys . At least you had something. And you arent even a  lawyer. How about that. so I'm going to take your word for it over TWO professors of law? not in this lifetime I'm not :D :D there were some mighty fine legal distinctions made in those comments.  the second one simply said 'should not' ie an opinion, not law.  the first said asylum SEEKING was not illegal and no one said it was.  He carefully avoided the fact that entering australia outside of a designated arrival zone and without a visa is illegal. they clearly hoped readers would be as stupid as most clearly are rather than people with the ability to think and see legal wording trying to make you think the opposite of the truth.

so after all hallaballoo that you agree they are doing nothing illegal if they come here without a visa to seek Asylum  :D :D :D :D

rhino wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 11:47am:

Its certainly  bringing out the idiots, including an alleged lawyer who apparently doesnt know a visa is required to enter the country.

EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES .... IE: when seeking asylum, provided they head directly to a point of authority from which they can do so

Aussie wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 9:29pm:

Quote: But illegal entrants is still correct. It all boils down to grammatical semantics and each side will choose the phrase which suits their agenda. These people are not illegal or illegals.  Their entry in some context may be described as illegal. The bigots choose to blur the distinction.

They are foreigners entering Australia illegally.


No blurring.

Soren wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 2:18pm:

Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:29pm: Quote: But illegal entrants is still correct. It all boils down to grammatical semantics and each side will choose the phrase which suits their agenda. These people are not illegal or illegals.  Their entry in some context may be described as illegal. The bigots choose to blur the distinction. They are foreigners entering Australia illegally. No blurring.

They are foreigners entering Australia legally to claim Asylum Soren.  No lies, please!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

As long as they aren't getting in who cares what you call them.

|dev|null wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 2:39pm:

Soren wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 2:18pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:29pm: Quote: But illegal entrants is still correct. It all boils down to grammatical semantics and each side will choose the phrase which suits their agenda. These people are not illegal or illegals.  Their entry in some context may be described as illegal. The bigots choose to blur the distinction. They are foreigners entering Australia illegally. No blurring. They are foreigners entering Australia legally to claim Asylum Soren.  No lies, please!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Until the government finds out that the only thing they are seeking is a luxurious life.

|dev|null wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 2:39pm:

Soren wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 2:18pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:29pm: Quote: But illegal entrants is still correct. It all boils down to grammatical semantics and each side will choose the phrase which suits their agenda. These people are not illegal or illegals.  Their entry in some context may be described as illegal. The bigots choose to blur the distinction. They are foreigners entering Australia illegally. No blurring. They are foreigners entering Australia legally to claim Asylum Soren.  No lies, please!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

liar liar pants on fire...
they are illegal entries and the UN says as much.
How many times must I post quotes and explain it to you people. :D :D :D

One more time for the UBER DUMMIES...


Grendel wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 9:05pm:

rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:33pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:08pm: Grendel wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:31pm: Good grief....  no visa you are illegal... that is clear and certain. the only thing certain is your level of stupidity ... an asylum seeker entering Australia without a visa is UNLAWFUL, not illegal . Fair enough. whats the difference John? I mean the entire legal fraternity in Australia says they are illegal, what do you know that they dont? Actually one shouldn't listen to Johnboy you'll get led astray. The Convention says Johnboy... "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. (Article 31, (1)) Gee look at that...  ILLEGAL ENTRY...  sorry Johnboy I keep trying to educate you but you never listen and never learn.  BTW we went over this very same thing ages ago...  YOU NEVER LEARN!!! ::) ::) ::)

From the current Australian Government Immigration website.


Quote:

Illegal maritime arrivals People who arrived illegally by boat are referred to​ as illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs). The Australian Government is committed to not providing permanent protection visas to people who arrive illegally.

From the current Australian Government Immigration website.


Quote:

Illegal maritime arrivals People who arrived illegally by boat are referred to​ as illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs). The Australian Government is committed to not providing permanent protection visas to people who arrive illegally.

Let me know when you lot get it ok... :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 3:57pm:

From the current Australian Government Immigration Previous Immigration Minister's  propaganda website. Quote: Illegal maritime arrivals People who arrived illegally by boat are referred to​ as illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs). The Australian Government is committed to not providing permanent protection visas to people who arrive illegally.

Fixed that for you.

http://www.immi.gov.au/About/Pages/ima/info.aspx

In case you don't believe me:

Link.


Quote:

This week, word emerges that Morrison has directed Department of Immigration and Border Protection staff to change the language they use to characterise asylum seekers who arrive by boat, and the department has duly relayed these instructions to its contractors in the immigration detention system. Arguably the most important question here is how far the department’s staff will go to incorporate the minister’s preferred phrasing into their work. It is an early test of the independence of the public service under Tony Abbott. We may have an answer within the month. Morrison’s instructions include directing staff to replace the phrase “asylum seeker” with “illegal maritime arrival”, and to replace “client” with “detainee” (onshore) or “transferee” (offshore). Challenged about these instructions, Morrison has defended them as a step away from “political correctness”, in favour of “calling a spade a spade”.

You were saying, Grendel?

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 3:46pm:

|dev|null wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 2:39pm: Soren wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 2:18pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:29pm: Quote: But illegal entrants is still correct. It all boils down to grammatical semantics and each side will choose the phrase which suits their agenda. These people are not illegal or illegals.  Their entry in some context may be described as illegal. The bigots choose to blur the distinction. They are foreigners entering Australia illegally. No blurring. They are foreigners entering Australia legally to claim Asylum Soren.  No lies, please!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D liar liar pants on fire... they are illegal entries and the UN says as much. How many times must I post quotes and explain it to you people. :D :D :D

I've already effectively countered that. The UN charter gives each country sovereignty over there own borders, stating that countries are to make up their own laws about border crossing.

Therefore we revert to Australian law in regards to what we spe ify assylum seekers to be, under which an asylum seeker is an "unlawful non-citizen". Not illegal at all.

The insistance of Morrison that staffers use the term "illegal" is to taint public opinion. It is divicive and incorrect. He's using the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants towards the same end.

It's Deliberately misleading and NOT Australian law.

mothra wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 4:19pm:

Grendel wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:46pm: |dev|null wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 2:39pm: Soren wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 2:18pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:29pm: Quote: But illegal entrants is still correct. It all boils down to grammatical semantics and each side will choose the phrase which suits their agenda. These people are not illegal or illegals.  Their entry in some context may be described as illegal. The bigots choose to blur the distinction. They are foreigners entering Australia illegally. No blurring. They are foreigners entering Australia legally to claim Asylum Soren.  No lies, please!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D liar liar pants on fire... they are illegal entries and the UN says as much. How many times must I post quotes and explain it to you people. :D :D :D I've already effectively countered that.  No you didn't... The UN charter gives each country sovereignty over there own borders, stating that countries are to make up their own laws about border crossing. The UN Convention, states ILLEGAL ENTRIES, the Immigration Dept states ILLEGAL also...  just how many times must I post it for you all?  hmmm.

Quote:

The UN Convention, states ILLEGAL ENTRIES, the Immigration Dept states ILLEGAL also...  just how many times must I post it for you all?  hmmm.

You can post it as many times as you like.  It is political propaganda as I have established.  Perhaps you can assist by referring to specific sections of the Act?

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 4:10pm:

http://www.immi.gov.au/About/Pages/ima/info.aspx

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 3:50pm:

One more time for the UBER DUMMIES... Grendel wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:05pm: rhino wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:33pm: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 8:08pm: Grendel wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 7:31pm: Good grief....  no visa you are illegal... that is clear and certain. the only thing certain is your level of stupidity ... an asylum seeker entering Australia without a visa is UNLAWFUL, not illegal . Fair enough. whats the difference John? I mean the entire legal fraternity in Australia says they are illegal, what do you know that they dont? Actually one shouldn't listen to Johnboy you'll get led astray. The Convention says Johnboy... "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. (Article 31, (1)) Gee look at that...  ILLEGAL ENTRY...  sorry Johnboy I keep trying to educate you but you never listen and never learn.  BTW we went over this very same thing ages ago...  YOU NEVER LEARN!!! ::) ::) ::)

Come on Grendel. Catch up.

Grendel, does the chance you will become a giraffe increase the more times I say you are one?

'Let me know when you lot get it ok... '

Grendel wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 4:59pm:

Grendel wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 4:10pm: http://www.immi.gov.au/About/Pages/ima/info.aspx

"You can post it as many times as you like.  It is political propaganda as I have established.  Perhaps you can assist by referring to specific sections of the Act?"

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 4:57pm:

Quote: The UN Convention, states ILLEGAL ENTRIES, the Immigration Dept states ILLEGAL also...  just how many times must I post it for you all?  hmmm. You can post it as many times as you like.  It is political propaganda as I have established.  Perhaps you can assist by referring to specific sections of the Act?

Illegal maritime arrivals
People who arrived illegally by boat are referred to​ as illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs).

http://www.immi.gov.au/About/Pages/ima/info.aspx

SO you are saying that Australian Department of Immigration doesn't know?  Remember, it's not the government, it's the public service - non-party political.

Soren wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:30pm:

Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 4:57pm: Quote: The UN Convention, states ILLEGAL ENTRIES, the Immigration Dept states ILLEGAL also...  just how many times must I post it for you all?  hmmm. You can post it as many times as you like.  It is political propaganda as I have established.  Perhaps you can assist by referring to specific sections of the Act? Illegal maritime arrivals People who arrived illegally by boat are referred to​ as illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs). http://www.immi.gov.au/About/Pages/ima/info.aspx SO you are saying that Australian Department of Immigration doesn't know?  Remember, it's not the government, it's the public service - non-party political.

Forget the Morrison propaganda.  I have already posted the link, but I guess you missed it.  So, just for you:

Link.

So far, to no avail, I have asked Rhino and Grendel, so now I'll ask you to assist by referring to specific sections of the Act?

Forget the propaganda.

Why do 90% of boat people have to be bloody muslims??

Aussie wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:40pm:

Soren wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:30pm: Aussie wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 4:57pm: Quote: The UN Convention, states ILLEGAL ENTRIES, the Immigration Dept states ILLEGAL also...  just how many times must I post it for you all?  hmmm. You can post it as many times as you like.  It is political propaganda as I have established.  Perhaps you can assist by referring to specific sections of the Act? Illegal maritime arrivals People who arrived illegally by boat are referred to​ as illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs). http://www.immi.gov.au/About/Pages/ima/info.aspx SO you are saying that Australian Department of Immigration doesn't know?  Remember, it's not the government, it's the public service - non-party political. Forget the Morrison propaganda.  I have already posted the link, but I guess you missed it.  So, just for you: Link. So far, to no avail, I have asked Rhino and Grendel, so now I'll ask you to assist by referring to specific sections of the Act? Forget the propaganda.

Your link: Link.
AUTHOR   Tom Clark
Senior Lecturer in Communication at Victoria University
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Tom Clark is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union, which has adopted public position on asylum seekers coming to Australia.


Forget the propaganda.



And remember - these unlawful non-citizens (illegal immigrants) are not fleeing Indonesia and Malaysia to which Australia is the closest safe haven.
Burmese, Bangladeshis, Pakis, Iraqis are not in danger in Malaysia or Indonesia.
You should put your efforts into castigating the Malays and Indonesians for being bad global citizens for not signing the Refugee convention. It is stupid to leapfrog over all the SE Asian cruelty and callousness and see nothing but Australia as the saviour of everyone. Just stupid.

Petition the Indos and the Malays to be proper, mature, responsible nations.i

double plus good wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:42pm:

Why do 90% of boat people have to be bloody muslims??

It must be because of Amerikkka and the Zionist entity. There is simpoly no other possible answer.

What? No Amerikkka and Zionist Entity in Burma?

Well, then it's because the WHOLE WORLD (manipulated by Amerikkka and the Zionist Entity) is against Muslims.

Islam has nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'.

double plus good wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:42pm:

Why do 90% of boat people have to be bloody muslims??

I don't have the current numbers but a few years ago the majority were Christian.

Soren wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 6:26pm:

double plus good wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:42pm: Why do 90% of boat people have to be bloody muslims?? It must be because of Amerikkka and the Zionist entity. There is simpoly no other possible answer. What? No Amerikkka and Zionist Entity in Burma? Well, then it's because the WHOLE WORLD (manipulated by Amerikkka and the Zionist Entity) is against Muslims. Islam has nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'.

They won't answer that. Everybody knows muslims can't get along with anybody. Even themselves.

Dnarever wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 6:30pm:

double plus good wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:42pm: Why do 90% of boat people have to be bloody muslims?? I don't have the current numbers but a few years ago the majority were Christian.

That's wrong. Except for a few Iraqi Christians and some Tamils every other group is Muslim. Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakis, Bangladeshis, Somalians, Sudanese etc. Now this new group are mussos. Where does it end? They hate us but want to bloody live with us for some reason.

They may stop the boats but they will never stop leftist idiocy  :D

As the only poster on here, that I have seen, who has openly admitted to being racist, I have no qualms in saying I do not want to see muslims coming to live in australia. Now please do not confuse my admitting to holding racist beliefs with my supporting the abuse or mistreatment of any individuals, based upon their racial background, because I do not.
I do however believe that racial stereotypes are most often earned, and the current belief that muslim means trouble is certainly hard to argue against.
Prior to the late 1970's, when we saw the meteoric rise of  militant Islamism, I held a different view about muslims, and if in time we revert to a state where they do not present as a significant threat to the peace and security of non muslims, then I would be happy to re-assess my position.

So I say, muslim refugees should only be granted asylum in muslim communities/countries.
We should take refugees who do not live obsessive lives trying to avenge any historical score or commit to any religious zealotry.

This current bunch of roohinyar are no exception, let muslim countries take them, because historically, they have not  behaved peacefully, or charitably to the non muslims they lived with.
In WW2 when the british gave them arms to fight the japanese, they instead decided to use the arms against the non-muslim burmese they lived with.
Pretty typical Islamic behaviour.
Personally, I would prefer to deal with an enemy elsewhere, than an enemy within my own community.

double plus good wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 6:30pm: double plus good wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 5:42pm: Why do 90% of boat people have to be bloody muslims?? I don't have the current numbers but a few years ago the majority were Christian. That's wrong. Except for a few Iraqi Christians and some Tamils every other group is Muslim. Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakis, Bangladeshis, Somalians, Sudanese etc. Now this new group are mussos. Where does it end? They hate us but want to bloody live with us for some reason.

so you're assuming that because they came from predominantly Muslim countries they had to be Muslim?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

mozzaok wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 4:03am:

As the only poster on here, that I have seen, who has openly admitted to being racist, I have no qualms in saying I do not want to see muslims coming to live in australia. Now please do not confuse my admitting to holding racist beliefs with my supporting the abuse or mistreatment of any individuals, based upon their racial background, because I do not. I do however believe that racial stereotypes are most often earned, and the current belief that muslim means trouble is certainly hard to argue against. Prior to the late 1970's, when we saw the meteoric rise of  militant Islamism, I held a different view about muslims, and if in time we revert to a state where they do not present as a significant threat to the peace and security of non muslims, then I would be happy to re-assess my position. So I say, muslim refugees should only be granted asylum in muslim communities/countries. We should take refugees who do not live obsessive lives trying to avenge any historical score or commit to any religious zealotry. This current bunch of roohinyar are no exception, let muslim countries take them, because historically, they have not  behaved peacefully, or charitably to the non muslims they lived with. In WW2 when the british gave them arms to fight the japanese, they instead decided to use the arms against the non-muslim burmese they lived with. Pretty typical Islamic behaviour. Personally, I would prefer to deal with an enemy elsewhere, than an enemy within my own community.

Yes but you need to understand the idiot lefts mindset on this, the more trouble the muslims are the more determined the idiot left are to bring them to Australia, that is a crazy position to take but crazy is what the idiot left is all about.  :D

Oh dear

MOST of the people stranded on boats at sea off Indonesia are not Rohingya refugees but illegal labourers from Bangladesh, Indonesian officials have reportedly told Australian officials.

http://www.news.com.au/world/pacific/rohingya-refugee-crisis-indonesia-claims-boats-carry-bangladesh-labourers/story-fnh819y6-1227366281558

mozzaok wrote on May 23^rd, 2015 at 4:03am:

As the only poster on here, that I have seen, who has openly admitted to being racist, I have no qualms in saying I do not want to see muslims coming to live in australia. Now please do not confuse my admitting to holding racist beliefs with my supporting the abuse or mistreatment of any individuals, based upon their racial background, because I do not. I do however believe that racial stereotypes are most often earned, and the current belief that muslim means trouble is certainly hard to argue against. Prior to the late 1970's, when we saw the meteoric rise of  militant Islamism, I held a different view about muslims, and if in time we revert to a state where they do not present as a significant threat to the peace and security of non muslims, then I would be happy to re-assess my position. So I say, muslim refugees should only be granted asylum in muslim communities/countries. We should take refugees who do not live obsessive lives trying to avenge any historical score or commit to any religious zealotry. This current bunch of roohinyar are no exception, let muslim countries take them, because historically, they have not  behaved peacefully, or charitably to the non muslims they lived with. In WW2 when the british gave them arms to fight the japanese, they instead decided to use the arms against the non-muslim burmese they lived with. Pretty typical Islamic behaviour. Personally, I would prefer to deal with an enemy elsewhere, than an enemy within my own community.

I'm guessing you don't believe in Multiculti anymore then eh Mozza...  good for you.  Join the club.
BTW I'm still not racist. ;)

They stopped the boats???

Yes in extreme weather conditions the Manly ferry is always closed for the day.

mothra wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 4:19pm:

Grendel wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 3:46pm: |dev|null wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 2:39pm: Soren wrote on May 22nd, 2015 at 2:18pm: Aussie wrote on May 21st, 2015 at 9:29pm: Quote: But illegal entrants is still correct. It all boils down to grammatical semantics and each side will choose the phrase which suits their agenda. These people are not illegal or illegals.  Their entry in some context may be described as illegal. The bigots choose to blur the distinction. They are foreigners entering Australia illegally. No blurring. They are foreigners entering Australia legally to claim Asylum Soren.  No lies, please!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D liar liar pants on fire... they are illegal entries and the UN says as much. How many times must I post quotes and explain it to you people. :D :D :D I've already effectively countered that. The UN charter gives each country sovereignty over there own borders, stating that countries are to make up their own laws about border crossing. Therefore we revert to Australian law in regards to what we spe ify assylum seekers to be, under which an asylum seeker is an "unlawful non-citizen". Not illegal at all. The insistance of Morrison that staffers use the term "illegal" is to taint public opinion. It is divicive and incorrect. He's using the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants towards the same end. It's Deliberately misleading and NOT Australian law.

They enter illegally and become unlawfuil non-citizens until they claim asylum and become asylum seekers. If they are found to be genuine refugees, they will be given refugee status. Then they can seek settlement.

SO they start out as illegal entrants because they cross the frontiers illegally.

As most of them are not genuine refugees but economic migrants who pretend to be refugees, it is safe to say that they are illegal immigrants at the point of crossing into Australian territory.