Dnarever wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 11:53pm:

The point I am making is that arrivals in Australia seeking refuge from persecution are not 'illegals' of any kind.

The term (illegals) is used to refer to refugees by the probable 10% white trash in Australian society (likely the progeny or cultural inheritors of the near 10% nay-sayers of the 67 Referendum) who (like all poorly educated and/or culturally, morally and ethically bankrupt minorities) have in common a primary goal - to inflict suffering on a people they consider (or want established as) an underclass lower than their own.

The white trash underclass are generally visible and audible when issues (like that of refugees fleeing persecution) are topical... and, of course, Australia Day (or Abuse-an-Immigrant Day).

They are commonly seen on occasions when they rally (and on Abuse-an-Immigrant Day) wearing the Australian flag as a batman cape and have donned T-shirts sporting slogans such as "bugger Off We're Full".

Their cause (to inflict suffering on an underclass) has been and is being co-opted by cynical politicians who see a near 10% voter potential and have put aside their own sense of ethics and morality in favour of their party's fortunes... Not unheard of among politicians, some of whom would "slit their own grandmother's throat" (metaphorically speaking) for a chance at holding onto their seat and thereby playing their part in bringing their party to government.

Maqqa wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 7:19am:

I offered you passages of a transcript from Federal High Court cases... That's the part of our Westminster system tasked with interpreting law, y'know.

"Legislative proof"

Parliament could legislate that "murder is legal" but it's unlikely that the Federal High Court would uphold Parliament's right to enact that legislation as Constitutional or in keeping with Australia's international obligations.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 7:48am:

The High Court interprets law, you fool... If the legislation is unenforcible or legal gibberish, it's the High Court that strikes it down where it cannot be sustained legally, or is unconstitutional and puts Parliament on notice where its enforcement would result in precedents that jeopardise/breach Constitutional constraints or international obligations.

Parliament does not have the right to pass legislation that breaches Constitutional constraints or international obligations unless it establishes a referendum to alter the Constitution in its favour or formally withdraws from its previously accepted international obligations.

Also... if you've ever met drafters of legislation you'll realise that not all of them are the full quid (legally speaking) and in some cases do not even have a law degree. But, I guess you'd have to get out of your armchair to do that.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 8:06am:

Now I'm sure you're stupid

I like this bit the best "They may, from time to time, quote laws"

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

Precedents based on what? You twat.

Do you even know what precedents are?

Wow, reading 10 pages of Maqqa pretending to understand the Migrant Act  is hilarious.

Yes, arriving by boat without prior approval is unauthorised entry.  However, the moment these people claim asylum, they are no longer ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.  Maqqa, get your terminology correct. Otherwise bugger off.

Illegal Immigrants are those who are in Australia illegally without a valid reason. It has nothing to do with how they have arrived.

The fact that we have no problem with people who arrive by plane, and yet we continually denigrate people who arrive by boat just goes to show how badly politicised this debate is, and how completely retarded the partisan stooges really are. It's exactly the same. Regardless of how much Maqqa wants to twist it.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 10:58am:


So if these people had papers you would have no problem accepting their claims.....What happens to the people who cannot get papers or a visa???

cods wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 9:27am: