The Children Overboard issue develops

[^ Pando]

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

It says that they can be removed from the country.

 

[^ Pando]

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.

As per the Tampa. We were under no obligation to let them land here.

 

[andrew flap]

yes, but under our care.

 

[andrew flap]

my point being we still have to assess the refugee claims

 

[Snoop]

And they're still not illegal!

 

[Jimbo]

It should be noted that 'landing' does not mean setting foot on Australian soil, it also includes 'Australian waters' which include a zone of water surrounding the actual mainland. So in order to 'land', an immigrant's boat needs only to enter this space.

 

[^ Pando]

I don't mind if we assess them while they are safe and well on Batshit Island. Doesn't worry me one bit.

 

[King of the Hill]

my point being we still have to assess the refugee claims

besides compassion, why?

 

[andrew flap]

in effect Jimbo, correct

 

[Jimbo]

And they're still not illegal!

Read my earlier post again snoop.

1. If they don't have visas, they are not lawful citizens.
2. If they are not lawful citizens, they are unlawful citizens.
3. Unlawful = Illegal

[/story]

 

[andrew flap]

SS asks besides compassion, why?

Because, as I said above, we signed a UN protocol that says we will accept refugees and assess their claims.

Compassion does not enter into it in this instance. You are either a refugee or you are not. It's a legal status, not an emotional decision based upon pity.

 

[mickdo]

1. If they don't have visas, they are not lawful citizens.
2. If they are not lawful citizens, they are unlawful citizens.
3. Unlawful = Illegal

According to the high court and the government, 'unlwaful' does not equal 'illegal', as it is merely a description.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2003/458.html

"It is true that the Migration Act defines a person who arrives without papers as an "unlawful non-citizen". It is purely a definitional term, as the government concedes. They could equally have been defined as "pop-up toasters" or "convicted terrorists". Giving them the tag as a matter of definition says nothing about the underlying facts."

 

[Jimbo]

Unlawful, illegal, it doesn't matter a sh*t.

You guys are trying to compare these clowns to your average Joe who rocks up complete with passport and visa, gets his carton of lungies and two litres of duty-free scotch and is in.

There is a big difference.

 

[andrew flap]

actually we're not. The comparison between a tourist and a refugee you make is kinda glib and and if you read the posts you'd be able to differentiate.

 

[Jimbo]

Well you guys are going to great lengths to justify why these people should be here. I'm wondering what you think the difference is?

 

[mickdo]

Unlawful, illegal, it doesn't matter a sh*t.

It matters a lot. The 'unlawful' term you refer to is merely a tag of their status. It does not imply that they have broken any laws, as shown by the link I just posted. 'Illegal' refers to breaking laws. Would you like your mate Johnny Howard to be called a 'child molester' if he in fact was not, and had never done such a thing?

You guys are trying to compare these clowns to your average Joe who rocks up complete with passport and visa, gets his carton of lungies and two litres of duty-free scotch and is in.

There is a big difference.

I'm certainly not. There is a huge difference I agree. As refugees the majority of these people have risked their lives to get to a country that they hope might provide a better life for them because it was the only way they could see for getting in. Your mate in the duty free lounge was probably lucky enough to be born in a country where he didn't have to resort to such drastic measures.

 

[Jimbo]

And of course, the rates the smugglers charge are a pittance compared to other means of transport, aren't they?

 

[mickdo]

And of course, the rates the smugglers charge are a pittance compared to other means of transport, aren't they?

What exactly is your point?

 

[Jimbo]

P.S.

'Illegal' refers to breaking laws.

We're talking about the Migration Act, which someone was kind enough to post earlier. An Act of Parliament. A law.

These guys are contravening said Act. Breaking a law. Which, by your own definition, is illegal...

 

[andrew flap]

Jimbo, I have never once sought to justify why these people should be here one way or another.

The issue I raised on page one was about the integrity of the PM and others saying children were being thrown overboard when information has recenty been stated to the contrary.

You're entitled to express you views, no worries but, please keep to the subject mate.

I suggested before that if you (and any one else) feel strongly about refugees one way or the other, start a thread, I'll happily air my views there.