The Children Overboard issue develops

[Snoop]

Did you actually read the Act yourself snoop?

I read more than just sections 13 and 14.

 

[^ Pando]

Certain transitory persons entitled to assessment of refugee status
(1)
If a transitory person is brought to Australia under section 198B and remains in Australia for a continuous period of 6 months, then the person is entitled to make a request under this section.

Where does it say that anyone who presents themselves to customs is entitled to apply for refugee status?

 

[andrew flap]

in the 1951 UN covention on refugees of which Australia is a signed up member country

 

[^ Pando]

Are you honestly trying to tell me that Australia can't turn boats away from the coast. That we just have to process anyone who gets on a boat?

 

[Jimbo]

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.

Unfortunate or not, can we agree that these idiots are unlawful non-citizens, as defined by the Act?

 

[andrew flap]

yep I am saying we have to look at all refugee calims made by whomever. We are obliged to assess all refugee claims made on our shores pursuant to the definition of that UN protocol.

 

[andrew flap]

Unfortunate or not, can we agree that these idiots are unlawful non-citizens, as defined by the Act?

Nope, we cannot. If you are a refugee as defined by the protocol, you are not by definition an UNC.

 

[^ Pando]

yep I am saying we have to look at all refugee calims made by whomever. We are obliged to assess all refugee claims made on our shores pursuant to the definition of that UN protocol.

On our shores. We don't have to let them in in the first place.

 

[andrew flap]

I think you may find we are also obliged under international shipping/maritime protocols to render assistance to all vessels in distress. Eg, MV tampa and the Danish (?) captain that rescued the boat people.

We could just tow them away but, most likely they would all die at sea with no water and food hence, the maritime thing I mentioned above.

 

[Snoop]

Andrew, I'm not sure if you're right here. Are they not UNC until their refugee status is determined?

By the way UNC are simply people who have no legal right to be in Australia. They still have not broken any laws. They are still not 'illegals'. Can we agree on that?

 

[^ Pando]

I think you may find we are also obliged under international shipping/maritime protocols to render assistance to all vessels in distress. Eg, MV tampa and its Danish (?) captain.

We could just tow them away but, most likely they would all die at sea with no water and food hence, the maritime thing I mentioned above.

Where did the Tampa end up? Certainly didn't come to Australia.

 

[^ Pando]

Andrew, I'm not sure if you're right here. Are they not UNC until their refugee status is determined?

By the way UNC are simply people who have no legal right to be in Australia. They still have not broken any laws. They are still not 'illegals'. Can we agree on that?

They have no legal right to be here. That means they are illegal. Throw up all the protocols and other bullshit as you like at it. It's still a duck.

 

[andrew flap]

s77 asks - Andrew, I'm not sure if you're right here. Are they not UNC until their refugee status is determined?

I don't think so. They are still in immigration clearance. Status not determined. They are held under the suspicion they may be UNCs.

 

[Jimbo]

Which is what detention centres are for

 

[andrew flap]

Pando says - They have no legal right to be here. That means they are illegal. Throw up all the protocols and other bullsh*t as you like at it. It's still a duck.

I do not consider international law to be bullsh*t. I'm sorry you disagree but, it exists and we are bound by it. Lobby Mr Howard if you want it changed.

The reason FYI that the Tampa mob were taken offshore was that they would not be subject to the migration act as they are not in Australia.There may be other political reasons as to why this was done but, that would be my opinion only.

 

[^ Pando]

Seems as though they would be subject to the migration act even if they did land here.


MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 198A
Offshore entry person may be taken to a declared country
(1)
An officer may take an offshore entry person from Australia to a country in respect of which a declaration is in force under subsection (3).

(2)
The power under subsection (1) includes the power to do any of the following things within or outside Australia:

(a) place the person on a vehicle or vessel;
(b) restrain the person on a vehicle or vessel;
(c) remove the person from a vehicle or vessel;
(d) use such force as is necessary and reasonable.

(3)
The Minister may:

(a) declare in writing that a specified country:
(i) provides access, for persons seeking asylum, to effective procedures for assessing their need for protection; and
(ii) provides protection for persons seeking asylum, pending determination of their refugee status; and
(iii) provides protection to persons who are given refugee status, pending their voluntary repatriation to their country of origin or resettlement in another country; and
(iv) meets relevant human rights standards in providing that protection; and
(b) in writing, revoke a declaration made under paragraph (a).

(4)
An offshore entry person who is being dealt with under this section is taken not to be in immigration detention (as defined in subsection 5(1)).

(5)
In this section, officer means an officer within the meaning of section 5, and includes a member of the Australian Defence Force.

 

[King of the Hill]

game set match pando

 

[andrew flap]

sorry Pando, I don't follow you there. Could you clarify ?? They would of course be subject to the Migration act if they landed here.

That part just describes how they can be housed and what type of restraint/conveyance can be used. As you will note, they are not in immigration detention as defined in the act.

Cheers

 

[^ Pando]

sorry Pando, I don't follow you there. Could you clarify ??

Cheers

There is a provision in the act to take people to another country, or did I read it wrong?

 

[andrew flap]

Pando, you're dead right there. But the other country has immigration laws too, you just can't dump them there or tow them back out to sea. This part of the act describes that an agreement may be made with another country to house boat persons outside of our territory. It's an enabling section.