The Children Overboard issue develops

[ibeme]

interesting new tactic coming from the left on here recently

trying to restrict debate to whatever they decide the 'topic', 'issue' or 'subject' is
and anything else isnt worthy of discussion! ten out of ten for trying!

No, the reason why the debate is being restricted is because, as already mentioned, the two issues are independant of one another.

Start a thread about asylum seekers, and you may get more support than you do in this thread. My stance on immigration has nothing to do with my stance on being misled.

I don't appreciate being misled on any issue, particularly by the PM, which is what this thread is about.

 

[Jimbo]

Oh, and once again... they aren't illegals.

They tried to get into our country in a manner contrary to international laws. Which is illegal...

Nevermind international laws - international law doesnt exist or we'd be governed by treaties that arent enforceable by anyone

Yeah, I meant our laws relating to international travel. In any case, how people can pretend that these idiots are somehow in the right is staggering

 

[mickdo]

Oh, and once again... they aren't illegals.

They tried to get into our country in a manner contrary to international laws. Which is illegal...

No it isn't. Read our immigration laws. You are wrong.

 

[King of the Hill]

Yeah, I meant our laws relating to international travel

too right

the reason why the debate is being restricted

keep trying

I don't appreciate being misled on any issue

in regards to what? asylum seekers?
but hold on
according to you i need to

Start a thread about asylum seekers

to talk about that

what this thread is about.

i note you didnt even start the thread

just because youre a mod on another forum doesnt give you a right to be a dick on this one

 

[Anonymous]

reguritated claims do not constitute proof

the boat magically sunk willow?

Where's your proof that the boat was scuttled? The Navy said nothing about it.

They say that NO children were thrown overboard.
They say photos were NOT of the same event.
They told the PM.

Is the Navy telling lies millers?

 

[Snoop]

Could someone who claims that these people are 'illegals' please point out which part of our migration laws they have actually broken?

 

[^ Pando]

Could someone who claims that these people are 'illegals' please point out which part of our migration laws they have actually broken?

The one that says you need a visa to come here.

 

[andrew flap]

actually, s77, I think from memory those who arrive without documents or are refused entry are deemed to have been 'refused immigration clearance' (or bypassed immigration clearance if they land and say escape or jump a fence etc and are not stamped in by immigration). Not technically a crime but, in fact a status like citizen, permanent resident, temporary resident, student etc.

The issue with that status is that it only applies when you are in the Migration Zone (read, Australia). Recent regulations have excluded parts of Australia from the Migration zone and as a result you are not subject to the migration act. Hence the pacific solution.

Illegal is just a buzz word. It exists nowhere as a status in the act.

 

[ibeme]

Yeah, I meant our laws relating to international travel

too right

the reason why the debate is being restricted

keep trying

I don't appreciate being misled on any issue

in regards to what? asylum seekers?
but hold on
according to you i need to

Start a thread about asylum seekers

to talk about that

what this thread is about.

i note you didnt even start the thread

just because youre a mod on another forum doesnt give you a right to be a dick on this one

I'm not even remotely pulling out my mod card. There are two different debates here. One is about being misled. The other is about asylum seekers. I happen to support the governments policy on asylum seekers. It's not perfect, but I don't have any better solutions. I don't support being misled on any issue though. That's why the two arguments are independant of one another, and should be argued independantly of one another. That is why a number of people in here have suggested creating another thread if you want to argue about asylum seekers. The issue here is not about asylum seekers. It's about being misled on the children overboard incident. It's about the integrity of the PM.

 

[mickdo]

Could someone who claims that these people are 'illegals' please point out which part of our migration laws they have actually broken?

The one that says you need a visa to come here.

Perhaps you should read the part that says if you enter Australia and present yourself to a custom official to seek assylum that you are not breaking the law. It never ceases to amaze me how some people think they know everything about our legal system without actually reading the laws they spout. I say again... read our Migration act. You are quite simply, wrong.

 

[^ Pando]

Perhaps you should read the part that says if you enter Australia and present yourself to a custom official to seek assylum that you are not breaking the law.

I guess that's why we have detention centres full of all those law abiding citizens. Don't be stupid.

 

[Snoop]

Could someone who claims that these people are 'illegals' please point out which part of our migration laws they have actually broken?

The one that says you need a visa to come here.

Here's a helping hand Pando

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

Knock yourself out.

 

[^ Pando]

Here's a helping hand Pando

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

Knock yourself out.

:lol: :lol: :lol: The Google lawyer strikes again! :lol:

 

[mickdo]

Perhaps you should read the part that says if you enter Australia and present yourself to a custom official to seek assylum that you are not breaking the law.

I guess that's why we have detention centres full of all those law abiding citizens. Don't be stupid.

You are the one being stupid. The reason we have those centres is to hold these people while we confirm or reject their refugee status. They have still broken no laws, yet the government is within its rights to hold them in centres because they are not Australian citizens, and must be processed accordingly. Just give it up, you have lost this one.

 

[Snoop]

Here's a helping hand Pando

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

Knock yourself out.

:lol: :lol: :lol: The Google lawyer strikes again! :lol:

So you take a stab in the dark at what you think out legislation says and laugh at me when I point you towards the legislation?

If lawyers consult austlii why can't we?

You seem to more content to live in your world where the law is what you think it is. Are you too scared of the truth?

 

[Jimbo]

Okay then....

From the Act

Lawful non-citizens
(1)
A non-citizen in the migration zone who holds a visa that is in effect is a lawful non-citizen.
(2)
An allowed inhabitant of the Protected Zone who is in a protected area in connection with the performance of traditional activities is a lawful non-citizen.

Unlawful non-citizens
(1)
A non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen is an unlawful non-citizen.

from www.dictionary.com

un·law·ful ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-lôfl)
adj.
Not lawful; illegal.

 

[Snoop]

Perhaps you should read the part that says if you enter Australia and present yourself to a custom official to seek assylum that you are not breaking the law.

I guess that's why we have detention centres full of all those law abiding citizens. Don't be stupid.

Notice how they are detention centres, not gaols?
Notice how there are no set lengths of time of detention as opposed to criminals?
Notice how none of them have been charged, tried or convicted of any crime?

 

[Jimbo]

Did you actually read the Act yourself snoop?

 

[andrew flap]

very good Jimbo but, incomplete.

A person who does not possess a valid visa is an UNC however, if that person is a refugee, they are in fact a holder of that status prior to being an UNC so the law in this case, that law does not apply.

They are detained for assessment of their claims to be tested because it cannot be known whether refugee status is bona fide.

 

[Snoop]

Okay then....

From the Act

Lawful non-citizens
(1)
A non-citizen in the migration zone who holds a visa that is in effect is a lawful non-citizen.
(2)
An allowed inhabitant of the Protected Zone who is in a protected area in connection with the performance of traditional activities is a lawful non-citizen.

Unlawful non-citizens
(1)
A non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen is an unlawful non-citizen.

from www.dictionary.com

un·law·ful ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-lôfl)
adj.
Not lawful; illegal.

Well done. I thought Pando could have at least come up with this.

However, the term lawful and unlawful here do not denote any breaking or non-breaking of any law. Most commentators view this as an unfortunate term.

You'll note that in clarifying the term unlawful non-citizen the Act says

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.

So prior to 1 Sept 1994 they were in fact 'illegals' however the law has changed now.