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

I'm sorry, am I missing something?

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Here, read it for yourself.  This is from the Migration Act 1958, section 14(2):

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

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

Is this 1994 or 2014?

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


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

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

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



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

Sorry.