Abbott in Government

[straitman]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

drsmithy,

I will ask once more in as simple terms as I'm able.

You are very critical of what Rudd & Abbott have/are doing re the boat people yet you have not at any stage offered a viable alternate.

What would you do, that is practical, to resolve the boat people situation and would you implement your solution :?:

 

[drron]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

I didn't agree with Rudd's approach to refugees. What possible reason would you have to believe that I do ?

Incidentally, they're not "illegal arrivals". There's nothing illegal about entering a country and claiming asylum. We've been through this before.

I have quoted the UN convention in the other thread.It clearly states that those who arrive without documents are illegal.it then goes on to ask the receiving country not to take action if they claim asylum.
They are still illegal arrivals.
Yes we have been through this before and again you did not read or understand what I said.
PS I didn't say you agreed with Rudd I said others here are failing TA after less than a week but still haven't failed KR.

 

[whatmeworry]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

If the Australian military enacts a coup because they don't like having to tow people back out to see to drown, can Australia cope with that ?

Your question is nonsensical. In what scenario, are you proposing nothing else changes but "one million people rock up in boats" ?

Sorry but my question is not nonsensical but is very practical. Australian can absorb a certain number of refugees before services on the mainland are strained. Arrivals by boat are also harder to screen, with potential criminals and terrorists gaining their way into Australia under false pretenses.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Sorry but my question is not nonsensical but is very practical. Australian can absorb a certain number of refugees before services on the mainland are strained.

You are positing the arrival of a million people via boats.

Your question is nonsensical.

Arrivals by boat are also harder to screen, with potential criminals and terrorists gaining their way into Australia under false pretenses.

How is someone arriving by boat without ID any more difficult to "screen" than someone arriving by air without ID ?

As for "criminals and terrorists", events in various other countries have demonstrated that if "criminals and terrorists" want to get into the country, they won't be doing it on a leaky boat from Indonesia.

 

[serfty]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

...


How is someone arriving by boat without ID any more difficult to "screen" than someone arriving by air without ID ?

...

This has been dealt worth before, but generally those arriving by air have had their travel credentials inspected before boarding.

Not so with the boat arrivals.

(Subsequent destruction of said credentials notwithstanding.)

 

[Skyring]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

And, obviously, once you're on the plane your passport becomes indestructible.

Yes, but you used your passport to get on the plane, there's a record of the details including the passport number, and identity is easily established by simply asking the passport issuer to send the information - including a copy of the photograph.

Do you imagine that if you destroy your passport on a plane, you suddenly become an international man of mystery, an enigma to the immigration folk? All they have to do is compare the passenger manifest to the list of passengers who successfully entered the country and surprise, surprise, surprise, there's only going to be one exception!

The whole planeload could destroy their passports and there's still a list of the passengers. Just sort through the possibilities, using the information provided by the passport issuer and by process of elimination everyone will eventually be identified.

 

[Pushka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

I was going to say the same as the previous two posts but thought I was missing something as it was so freakingly obvious.

 

[Skyring]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

If the Australian military enacts a coup because they don't like having to tow people back out to see to drown, can Australia cope with that ?

Your question is nonsensical.

May I suggest that you examine your own contributions carefully before criticising those of others?

The wise advice found here may help understand how you are regarded.

 

[Skyring]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

I was going to say the same as the previous two posts but thought I was missing something as it was so freakingly obvious.

I eagerly await drsmithy's acknowledgement of the blindingly obvious.

 

[Skyring]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

If he went down this track all he needs is the approval from the Queen. I'm sure HM would be very accepting of JH.....although he would probably wait until his third term to do it

The Queen's approval is not required. We went through this in 1930 when Scullin advised King George V to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs as the first Australian-born Governor-General and the King had no option but to accept the advice against his own personal wishes:

Early in December his appointment as governor-general was announced. On 22 January 1931 he took the oaths of office, the first native-born Australian to be appointed.For months there had been great controversy. Early in 1930 the retiring governor-general, Lord Stonehaven, had informed the Labor prime minister, J. H. Scullin, that the United Kingdom government would welcome an indication of a suitable successor before consulting the King. According to Garran, cabinet in February or March, after considering Isaacs and Sir John Monash, decided to recommend Isaacs and so informed Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald. By April the rumoured appointment had produced violent opposition, based largely on party-political grounds, to preferment of an Australian. It was argued that a local man would inevitably have personal involvements and that a distinguished citizen of the United Kingdom would better secure the bonds of Empire; Isaacs, moreover, was in his mid-seventies. The constitutional position was uncertain in that it was not clearly established where the constitutional advice for the appointment of a governor-general should originate. While the Imperial Conference of 1926 had precluded the tendering of advice by the United Kingdom government, it did not then state that the source of advice for appointment was the prime minister of the relevant Dominion. Led especially by the advice of his private secretary, Lord Stamfordham, King George V was strongly opposed to the appointment of Isaacs because he was a 'local man', there had been no prior consultation and he was elderly and personally unknown to him. The Imperial Conference confirmed early in November 1930, however, that a governor-general should be appointed on the advice of the Dominion government concerned, though only after informal consultation. Late in November, in audience with the King, Scullin stood firm, the King reluctantly approved, and the announcement of Isaacs's appointment was made with a clear implication of the King's displeasure. --Australian Dictionary of Biography

However, this situation has not recurred, as there is usually some informal discussion before the announcement is made. But if it ever came to the crunch, the monarch has no option but to accept advice.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

This has been dealt worth before, but generally those arriving by air have had their travel credentials inspected before boarding.

Which would, obviously, be impeccable and accurate.

The bar is higher to get onto a plane, certainly, but if someone arrives on a plane without ID and claims asylum then this is going to throw into question their whole background story.

I'm fairly sure asylum seekers are subject to the same level of background checks and "screening" regardless of how they arrive.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

May I suggest that you examine your own contributions carefully before criticising those of others?

Can you outline the reasoning behind which the arrival of "one million" boat people should be considered a valid context to consider the issues ?

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

I have quoted the UN convention in the other thread.It clearly states that those who arrive without documents are illegal.it then goes on to ask the receiving country not to take action if they claim asylum.
They are still illegal arrivals.
Yes we have been through this before and again you did not read or understand what I said.

No, we went through it before and you were wrong because you didn't understand the difference between "unlawful" and "illegal".

From here:

"Asylum seekers irrespective of their mode of arrival, like others that arrive in Australia without avalid visa, are classified by Australian law to be ‘unlawful non‐citizens’. However, the term ‘unlawful’
does not mean that asylum seekers have committed a criminal offence. There is no offence under
Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a
valid visa."

 

[Skyring]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Can you outline the reasoning behind ...

I'm answering no red herrings of yours until you address the issue I raised. Cheers.

 

[drron]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

But to the majority of people though there is a slight difference in meaning would take unlawful to mean illegal as is said in the Oxford dictionary-
Illegal and unlawful have slightly different meanings, although they are often used interchangeably. Something that is illegal is against the law, whereas an unlawful act merely contravenes the rules that apply in a particular context. Thus handball in soccer is unlawful, but it is not illegal. A third word with a similar meaning is illicit: this tends to encompass things that are forbidden or disapproved of by custom or society, as in an illicit love affair.

Other dictionaries in fact give the definition of unlawful as illegal.

 

[Skyring]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Other dictionaries in fact give the definition of unlawful as illegal.

I believe drsmithy is - perhaps deliberately - confusing the UN reference with the Australian legislation, so as not to accept the UN description of asylum-seekers without valid ID as illegal arrivals. I grow weary of drsmithy's endless evasions. If someone cannot accept reality and prefers their own fantasies, we have a name for them, one that is also linked to the word asylum.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

I'm answering no red herrings of yours until you address the issue I raised. Cheers.

Pretty sure someone asking how to deal with a million boat arrivals is throwing up a hell of a "red herring".

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Other dictionaries in fact give the definition of unlawful as illegal.

The only definition that matters in questions of the law is the legal one.

Lots of people think a "theory" is something they come up with over a few beers in the pub. That does not change what the word means when used to describe actual science.

Arriving without a visa and claiming asylum is not a criminal offense under Australian law. Ergo, not illegal.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

I believe drsmithy is - perhaps deliberately - confusing the UN reference with the Australian legislation, so as not to accept the UN description of asylum-seekers without valid ID as illegal arrivals. I grow weary of drsmithy's endless evasions. If someone cannot accept reality and prefers their own fantasies, we have a name for them, one that is also linked to the word asylum.

The reality is that a) the UN does not define what is and is not "illegal" in Australia and b) someone arriving in Australia without a visa and claiming asylum has not committed a criminal offense.

 

[lovestotravel]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Let all the boat people that want to come here come here

Just don't give them any welfare benefits

They'll stop coming soon enough