Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[medhead]

Yup. Arrive at SYD with no ID and you get sent back. Clear breach of the Immigration Act.

A breech of which section of the act? (Second time I've asked you this)

Of course. Nevertheless, illegal. Claiming asylum per se isn't illegal, but that status does not extend a charmed status of exemption from the law to asylum-seekers, specifically any acts of transit through or arrival in Australian territory.

Again name the section. Given that the act specifically allows for the situation where people don't have documents, it's not clear how it is illegal. Just back up you claim.

 

[Hvr]

A breech of which section of the act? (Second time I've asked you this)



Again name the section. Given that the act specifically allows for the situation where people don't have documents, it's not clear how it is illegal. Just back up you claim.

If you're referring to my comment, I'm not saying it is a breach of the Act, nor that it is illegal Just pointing out that it does happen. Indeed far more than most people realise as per these figures from the APH library show:

Updated 11 February 2013[h=1]Do most asylum seekers arrive by boat?[/h] Until recently, the vast majority of asylum seekers applying for protection in Australia arrived originally by air with a valid visa and then applied for asylum at a later date while living in the community.[32] Historically, boat arrivals only made up a small proportion of asylum applicants—estimates vary, but it is likely that between 96 and 99 per cent of asylum applicants arrived by air.[33]

More recently the proportions of Irregular Maritime Arrival (IMA) and non-IMA (that is air arrival) asylum seekers have shifted due to the increase in boat arrivals. However, boat arrivals still only comprise about half of Australia’s onshore asylum seekers:

 

[medhead]

If you're referring to my comment, I'm not saying it is a breach of the Act, nor that it is illegal :

Misquote. sorry. Fixed now

 

[straitman]

Nooss and Gold Coast is just 2 markets out of like a thousand. That's called selective.

Two examples of many is a a more appropriate way of saying it.

Most of QLD property is depressed........anything around mines has done ok however, with job losses starting to exculate its only a matter of time before they drop like a sinker.

Could well be the case unfortunately.

 

[Hvr]

Misquote. sorry. Fixed now

No problems.

 

[Skyring]

A breech of which section of the act? (Second time I've asked you this)

And the second time I've told you. The Politifact ruling gives the details:

Section 14 of Australia’s Migration Act specifies that "a non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen [ie, a non-citizen holding an appropriate visa] is an unlawful non-citizen".

Section 228B spells out that "a non-citizen seeking protection or asylum" but without a valid visa has "no lawful right to come to Australia", regardless of Australia’s protection obligations. Prior to 1994, an unlawful non-citizen was known in law as an "illegal entrant".

And article 31 of the UN convention says a refugee who enters a country without authorisation does so illegally, although nations that have signed the convention "shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence".

Article 3 of the UN convention against transnational organised crime and the protocol against the smuggling of migrants by land, sea or air speaks of people smugglers as facilitators for profit of the "illegal entry of the person into a State Party [in our case, read Australia] of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident" and that "illegal entry shall mean crossing borders without complying with the necessary requirements", such as a visa.

Morrison told PolitiFact: "The Coalition has never said it is illegal to seek asylum. It’s not illegal to seek asylum; however it is illegal, according to international conventions, to enter a country without a valid visa."

 

[medhead]

And the second time I've told you. The Politifact ruling gives the details:
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Unlawful non-citizen is a defined term in the act. As I said the act provision for the situation. So it's not prohibited by the act and hence is not illegal.

 

[Skyring]

Unlawful non-citizen is a defined term in the act. As I said the act provision for the situation. So it's not prohibited by the act and hence is not illegal.

A reasonable person would regard "unlawful" and "illegal" to be synonyms.

 

[Hvr]

A reasonable person would regard "unlawful" and "illegal" to be synonyms.

We're talking about the law, therefore the legal definitions are applicable.

Oh and whoever said lawyers were reasonable people?

 

[medhead]

A reasonable person would regard "unlawful" and "illegal" to be synonyms.

In normal everyday language, yes. But in this case unlawful arises as a definition in legislation. It takes on the meaning as defined in the act and loses its common meaning.

 

[medhead]

Heard that line about statistics?

The methodology is stated by the abs. Feel free to undertake a critical analysis.

 

[amaroo]

The methodology is stated by the abs. Fell free to undertake a critical analysis.

I like the saying.......holds more water IMO.

 

[Skyring]

In normal everyday language, yes. But in this case unlawful arises as a definition in legislation. It takes on the meaning as defined in the act and loses its common meaning.

Your opinion is always welcome. Tell me, did you ever read George Orwell's 1984 where the word "doublethink" was introduced to the English language? Do you see this as something I might regard you as indulging in?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

 

[drsmithy]

A reasonable person would regard "unlawful" and "illegal" to be synonyms.

Not after you've spent a minute or two explaining the difference.

 

[drsmithy]

Your opinion is always welcome. Tell me, did you ever read George Orwell's 1984 where the word "doublethink" was introduced to the English language? Do you see this as something I might regard you as indulging in?
Doublethink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not if you actually understood the book.

 

[medhead]

Your opinion is always welcome. Tell me, did you ever read George Orwell's 1984 where the word "doublethink" was introduced to the English language? Do you see this as something I might regard you as indulging in?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

I'm sorry if you are unable to understand that legislation often can and does take different meanings. I'm not sure I can welcome an opinion that ignores the fact that the law often applies specific meanings to common everyday words. Especially when you feel the need to back that up with an insult. Much as it hurts your opinion an "unlawful" whatever is provided for in the Act. I've yet to see you quote a section of the act that prohibits being an unlawful [whatever].

 

[medhead]

I like the saying.......holds more water IMO.

Indeed a broad based review of data certainly does hold more water than 2 antidotal examples.

 

[Skyring]

I'm sorry if you are unable to understand that legislation often can and does take different meanings. I'm not sure I can welcome an opinion that ignores the fact that the law often applies specific meanings to common everyday words. Especially when you feel the need to back that up with an insult. Much as it hurts your opinion an "unlawful" whatever is provided for in the Act. I've yet to see you quote a section of the act that prohibits being an unlawful [whatever].

I take the reasonable position that "unlawful" and "illegal" are the same thing, a position shared by Politifact.

As I said, your personal opinion is always welcome, and you haven't answered my very pertinent question about doublethink.

 

[drsmithy]

I take the reasonable position that "unlawful" and "illegal" are the same thing, a position shared by Politifact.

No it's not. That's not what the Politifact article says at all.

 

[amaroo]

Indeed a broad based review of data certainly does hold more water than 2 antidotal examples.

Well, that's your opinion.