Australian Politics Forum - Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #150 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:59am

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

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

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

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

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

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

Yes, the Migration Act references it by saying that "illegal" is no longer applicable.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

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

In case you weren't aware Maqqa, it is now after 1 September 1994: versions of the Act using the term "illegal" are now superseded (it's a big word, I know, but look it up in a dictionary).

Before September 1994: "illegal entrant".

After September 1994: "unlawful non-citizen".

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

Roll Eyes

Yes. Unlawful. Not illegal.

There is a difference.

Under the Refugee Convention to which we are a party:

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#illegals

That is why there is nothinl illegal about being an unlawful non-citizen as it is described in teh Act

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #151 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:01pm

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

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

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

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

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

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

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

Roll Eyes

Correct.

Extremely important in law.

Which is precisely why the Act was amended.

They changed the name but not the definition

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

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

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

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

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

Now, what's your point? Undecided

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

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

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

Unless they've been accepted - they are aliens

Yes. And it is not illegal to be an alien

But it is impossible to be un-lawful, without being illegal.

Cheesy

No it isn't impossible to be un-lawful, without being illegal.. The words have two very distinct meanings in law. They do not mean the same thing

Back to top

IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #152 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:02pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

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

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

That's correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But they dont enter australia until they are granted visas.

SOB

That's the point of difference Borg. They (plane arrivals) enter Australia legally. Their bonafides are subject to screening. Boat arrivals aren't.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

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

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

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

But they do according to the Migration Act.

It states

Quote:

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

They are the same which is the issue you raised. (Refer your Reply #128

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:45pm:

No, not illegal.

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

Waiting ...

So I guess your are wrong GPC?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156588
Gender: male

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #153 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:08pm

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

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

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

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

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

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

Roll Eyes

Correct.

Extremely important in law.

Which is precisely why the Act was amended.

They changed the name but not the definition

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

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

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

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

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

Now, what's your point? Undecided

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

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

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

Unless they've been accepted - they are aliens

Absolutely.

How could anyone possibly argue otherwise?

Who is saying anything to the contrary Maqqa?

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

FriYAY

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7395

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #154 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:09pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

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

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

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

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

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

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

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

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

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

Before September 1994: "illegal entrant".

After September 1994: "unlawful non-citizen".

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

Roll Eyes

Yes. Unlawful. Not illegal.

There is a difference.

Under the Refugee Convention to which we are a party:

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#illegals

That is why there is nothinl illegal about being an unlawful non-citizen as it is described in teh Act

Synonyms:

illegal - illicit - illegitimate - lawless - wrongful

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

Consequences of being unlawful

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

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #155 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:11pm

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

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

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

That's correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But they dont enter australia until they are granted visas.

SOB

That's the point of difference Borg. They (plane arrivals) enter Australia legally. Their bonafides are subject to screening. Boat arrivals aren't.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

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

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

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

But they do according to the Migration Act.

It states

Quote:

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

They are the same which is the issue you raised. (Refer your Reply #128

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 25^th, 2013 at 10:45pm:

No, not illegal.

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

Waiting ...

So I guess your are wrong GPC?

No. Grerggery is absolutely correct.

You seem to have very poor comprehension skills. The section you just quoted states very clearly that
what was deemed illegal prior to 1 September 1994, is now not illegal.

What was an "illegal entrant" is now an unlawful non-citizen.

Not illegal

Quote:

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

And this is consistent with our obligations under the Refugee Convention:

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#illegals

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #156 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:15pm

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

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

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

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

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

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

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

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

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

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

Before September 1994: "illegal entrant".

After September 1994: "unlawful non-citizen".

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

Roll Eyes

Yes. Unlawful. Not illegal.

There is a difference.

Under the Refugee Convention to which we are a party:

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#illegals

That is why there is nothinl illegal about being an unlawful non-citizen as it is described in teh Act

Synonyms:

illegal - illicit - illegitimate - lawless - wrongful

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

Consequences of being unlawful

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

Friyay don't be like maqqa; don't be a dummy. Asylum seekers are only unlawfull citizens if their application for a protection visa is denied. But when a person arrives in the country and applies for asylum they are in effect applying for a protection visa; which is perfectly legal and the person is NOT CLASSIFIED as an unlawful citizen.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #157 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:16pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

So I guess your are wrong GPC?

No. Grerggery is absolutely correct.

You seem to have very poor comprehension skills. The section you just quoted states very clearly that
what was deemed illegal prior to 1 September 1994, is now not illegal.

What was an "illegal entrant" is now an unlawful non-citizen.

Not illegal

Quote:

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

It was a name change

The meaning stayed the same

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156588
Gender: male

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #158 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:16pm

Swagman wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:02pm:

But they do according to the Migration Act.

It states

Quote:

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

They are the same which is the issue you raised. (Refer your Reply #128

LOL

It says "To avoid doubt" and yet you still get it wrong.

They mean different things, which is exactly why that amendment was made.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #159 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:21pm

Quote:

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#illegals

Applying for protection onshore is not a means of “jumping the queue” or bypassing the “proper” process of applying for protection. In fact, applying onshore is the standard procedure for seeking protection. According to the definition in the UN Refugee Convention, refugees are persons who are outside their country of origin. This means that you cannot apply for refugee status if you are inside your own country

How Smacking misleading is the refugee council

Yes - you need to be in another country to claim refugee

But what's the position when you are country shopping and skipped all the other countries only to specifically target a country to claim asylum

There's 10 different countries between Sri Lanka and Australia that they could have applied

Australia just passed a Bill taking Australia from the Migration Zone so that these illegal aliens do not queue jump

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

FriYAY

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7395

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #160 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:21pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

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

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

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

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

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

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

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

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

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

Before September 1994: "illegal entrant".

After September 1994: "unlawful non-citizen".

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

Roll Eyes

Yes. Unlawful. Not illegal.

There is a difference.

Under the Refugee Convention to which we are a party:

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#illegals

That is why there is nothinl illegal about being an unlawful non-citizen as it is described in teh Act

Synonyms:

illegal - illicit - illegitimate - lawless - wrongful

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

Consequences of being unlawful

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

Friyay don't be like maqqa; don't be a dummy. Asylum seekers are only unlawfull citizens if their application for a protection visa is denied. But when a person arrives in the country and applies for asylum they are in effect applying for a protection visa; which is perfectly legal and the person is NOT CLASSIFIED as an unlawful citizen.

All i did was quote the dictionary and the immigration fact sheet on un-lawful non-citizens.

"should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum"

Not - MUST not or CAN not or SHALL not, but should not - hmmmmmmmm

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #161 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:22pm

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

So I guess your are wrong GPC?

No. Grerggery is absolutely correct.

You seem to have very poor comprehension skills. The section you just quoted states very clearly that
what was deemed illegal prior to 1 September 1994, is now not illegal.

What was an "illegal entrant" is now an unlawful non-citizen.

Not illegal

Quote:

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

It was a name change

The meaning stayed the same

Ha ha ha!!!

Give up you idiot.

It is not illegal to seek asylum.

And the Refugee Convention specifically reinforces this point:

The UNHCR states that refugee status exists prior to and independent of the recognition of this status by member countries.
http://www.safecom.org.au/senate-inquiry.htm

At no stage in the asylum seeking process is a bona-fide asylum seeker doing anything "illegal".

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #162 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:22pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:16pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

So I guess your are wrong GPC?

No. Grerggery is absolutely correct.

You seem to have very poor comprehension skills. The section you just quoted states very clearly that
what was deemed illegal prior to 1 September 1994, is now not illegal.

What was an "illegal entrant" is now an unlawful non-citizen.

Not illegal

Quote:

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

It was a name change

The meaning stayed the same

Ha ha ha!!!

Give up you idiot.

It is not illegal to seek asylum.

And the Refugee Convention specifically reinforces this point:

The UNHCR states that refugee status exists prior to and independent of the recognition of this status by member countries.
http://www.safecom.org.au/senate-inquiry.htm

At no stage in the asylum seeking process is a bona-fide asylum seeker doing anything "illegal".

where have I ever said it was??

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #163 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:15pm:

FriYAY wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:59am:

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

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

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

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

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

(1) The Migration Act referenced it

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

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

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

Before September 1994: "illegal entrant".

After September 1994: "unlawful non-citizen".

Yes

they are illegal

No, they were illegal.

Learn to read my friend. Learn to read.

And now they're "unlawful"

Semantics Uncle - your favorite game.

Roll Eyes

Yes. Unlawful. Not illegal.

There is a difference.

Under the Refugee Convention to which we are a party:

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php#illegals

That is why there is nothinl illegal about being an unlawful non-citizen as it is described in teh Act

Synonyms:

illegal - illicit - illegitimate - lawless - wrongful

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

Consequences of being unlawful

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

Friyay don't be like maqqa; don't be a dummy. Asylum seekers are only unlawfull citizens if their application for a protection visa is denied. But when a person arrives in the country and applies for asylum they are in effect applying for a protection visa; which is perfectly legal and the person is NOT CLASSIFIED as an unlawful citizen.

All i did was quote the dictionary and the immigration fact sheet on un-lawful non-citizens.

"should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum"

Not - MUST not or CAN not or SHALL not, but should not - hmmmmmmmm

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Labor have now stuffed up Nauru as well
Reply #164 - Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:38pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

Fair enough, but just recognise that it's the protection visa clauses that apply to asylum seekers, not section 14. As maqqa fails to understand, the dummy.

Quote:

http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/onshore/866/

To be granted a Protection visa you will need to be found to be owed protection in Australia, because you are a refugee as defined by the Refugees Convention, or because you meet the complementary protection criteria

These illegal aliens have been approved as refugees?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 26^th, 2013 at 12:47pm by Maqqa »

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged