Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[medhead]

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

Actually, you quoted Scott Morrison not politifact. Even then the quote from Scott Morrison does not say it is illegal under the Australia legislation. Even Scott Morrison does not agree with your opinion

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

You've accused my of cognitive impairment*. I've told you I find that insulting what more answer do you need?

* ironic given the example above.

Well, that's your opinion.

And my opinion is defensible based on the evidence I presented. I note you refuse to refute that evidence in any meaningful way.

 

[drron]

Though the UN is often quoted as the reason asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.But as quoted by Skyring the UN has said entering without a visa is illegal but there should be no penalty.
I love how you guys use words.the letter of the Australian law says unlawful so you insist it is not illegal.
Julia Gillard introduces a Carbon Tax which she called it in her announcement of putting the legislation to parliament but then you bring in all sorts of reasons why it isn't a tax even though it was called one.
But your opinions are irrelevant.The majority of people believe the ALP introduced a carbon tax and they believe there is little difference between unlawful and illegal.

 

[Skyring]

Actually, you quoted Scott Morrison not politifact. Even then the quote from Scott Morrison does not say it is illegal under the Australia legislation. Even Scott Morrison does not agree with your opinion.

You've accused my of cognitive impairment*. I've told you I find that insulting what more answer do you need?

* ironic given the example above. And my opinion is defensible based on the evidence I presented. I note you refuse to refute that evidence in any meaningful way.

As I have noted several times now, your own individual personal opinion is welcome. If you could present something more than opinion, I'm inclined to think that you might have done so by now.

As for "cognitive impairment", neither of the questions I asked made any such accusation. Read them again, please.

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?

 

[amaroo]

And my opinion is defensible based on the evidence I presented. I note you refuse to refute that evidence in any meaningful way.

Years of experience in property in QLD..........counts for something. Not my problem you don't see value it.

 

[Skyring]

But your opinions are irrelevant.The majority of people believe the ALP introduced a carbon tax and they believe there is little difference between unlawful and illegal.

In the end, we're a democracy, and people may cast their votes any way that they please. And of course, given the diversity of our democracy, there are some voters who will see others as ignorantly stupidly wrong in their choices.

That's fine. Nobody marks votes as correct or incorrect. They are just tallied up and whoever comes out with more votes wins. It might not be the perfect system, but it seems to have worked well. We are now one of the oldest of the great liberal democracies, and that has to count for something.

 

[medhead]

Though the UN is often quoted as the reason asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.But as quoted by Skyring the UN has said entering without a visa is illegal but there should be no penalty.
I love how you guys use words.the letter of the Australian law says unlawful so you insist it is not illegal.

It's a definition in legislation that is used as a descriptor of a class of person. It is not a statement of being. It's like saying that a 6 cylinder car that is not a "Holden Car" will be known as a "Unholden Car". I've agreed with the reasonable persons interpretation of those two words but also note that that interpretation is no longer applicable when there is a definition in legislation. For example a reasonable person might think that anything that emits radiation following spontaneous transformation of its atoms is radioactive. The legislative definition does not agree.

Then if we look at the definition under section 14 of the act and take a hypothetical person with a tourist visa who arrives in Australia by boat. They are a lawful non-citizen. Move on three months, the visa expires and they're still in Australia. They are no long a lawful non-citizen, and therefore are an unlawful non-citizen. They might now claim asylum or whatever. There is nothing illegal in their arrival into Australia. So they are unlawful but they are not illegal boat people or asylum seekers.

 

[medhead]

As I have noted several times now, your own individual personal opinion is welcome. If you could present something more than opinion, I'm inclined to think that you might have done so by now.
.

So your quote from politifact is just opinion and not fact. Ok then. I guess that says it all.

 

[medhead]

Years of experience in property in QLD..........counts for something. Not my problem you don't see value it.

The problem is your not using your experience to counter the facts presented. You say black is white and against that I give you cold hard numbers that say otherwise. I certainly value cold hard facts over a couple of examples presented without any evidence. I also think that the overall picture is best represented by information from all areas not just a couple of examples. After all, the issue is the big picture not what's happening in xyz st southport.

 

[Skyring]

So they are unlawful but they are not illegal ... boat people or asylum seekers.

Two points. This distinction is not one easily agreed with by a reasonable person. Second, you have given nothing but your opinion and a lot of handwaving. Nor are you providing any sort of Socratic reasoning to reveal the truth.

You may have to admit that, just like Julia Gillard, you believe in what you say, but you haven't been able to communicate effectively.

As for asylum seeking, nobody is contending that this is illegal. It's the illegal arrivals that are the problem.

I mean, there is a problem, isn't there? It seems to be one of the dominant factors in the current political debate and I suggest that few see the situation as anything but a problem.

It's hardly a solution, is it?

 

[Skyring]

So your quote from politifact is just opinion and not fact. Ok then. I guess that says it all.

If that's what you truly believe, then how can I dissuade you?

My quote from Politifact drew upon the words of the Migration Act, demonstrating that unauthorised entry was unlawful.

 

[drsmithy]

I love how you guys use words.the letter of the Australian law says unlawful so you insist it is not illegal.

In "the letter of the Australian law", "unlawful" and "illegal" are different things.

Julia Gillard introduces a Carbon Tax which she called it in her announcement of putting the legislation to parliament but then you bring in all sorts of reasons why it isn't a tax even though it was called one.

That's because "the letter of the Australian law" says it isn't a tax.

But your opinions are irrelevant.The majority of people believe the ALP introduced a carbon tax and they believe there is little difference between unlawful and illegal.

So you are arguing that newspaper polls should be considered more authoritative than ""the letter of the Australian law" ?

You guys who think things should be decided based on a popularity contest, are scary.

 

[drsmithy]

We are now one of the oldest of the great liberal democracies, and that has to count for something.

And if we want to remain so, it would be best not to confuse what the law says, with what a newspaper poll says.

 

[drsmithy]

If that's what you truly believe, then how can I dissuade you?

My quote from Politifact drew upon the words of the Migration Act, demonstrating that unauthorised entry was unlawful.

Your language seems to have suddenly changed. I wonder why ? Could it be your lack of honesty and integrity ?

You originally said:

Equating illegal immigrants with refugees is a big swallow, though of course there are those who are waxing fat on the process.

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.

As for asylum seeking, nobody is contending that this is illegal. It's the illegal arrivals that are the problem.

Then later quoted from Politifact:

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."

However, Politifact's conclusion differs from yours:

he rulingMorrison doesn’t say asylum seeking is illegal. Indeed, quite the opposite. What he does argue is that the means of getting to Australia without a visa or any other authorisation is illegal.

Morrison’s use of such language may be politically opportune but to argue his claim is self-evidently baseless is to ignore the wording of the very law his critics rely on to denounce him.
It doesn’t give Morrison a giant tick but the normal reader, encountering the apparently conflicting language found in the legal framework, would likely be confused.

At the same time, a not insignificant test of an act's illegality is whether it is punishable by law. Entering Australia by boat without the necessary authorisation is not.

There is a distinction between unlawful person, and illegal immigrant. It is similar in concept to the difference between a civil offense and a criminal offense. No amount of bluster and handwaving on your behalf will change that.

 

[medhead]

Two points. This distinction is not one easily agreed with by a reasonable person. Second, you have given nothing but your opinion and a lot of handwaving. Nor are you providing any sort of Socratic reasoning to reveal the truth.

You may have to admit that, just like Julia Gillard, you believe in what you say, but you haven't been able to communicate effectively.

As for asylum seeking, nobody is contending that this is illegal. It's the illegal arrivals that are the problem.

I mean, there is a problem, isn't there? It seems to be one of the dominant factors in the current political debate and I suggest that few see the situation as anything but a problem.

It's hardly a solution, is it?

I'm not hand waving anything. Lets stick to your point. You claim that being defined/called unlawful under section 14 means it is illegal. You have claimed illegality under the australia Migration act. In support of your claim you've linked to politifact which quotes a section of the migration act. However, if you read that section it does not support your claim. It is basic reading comprehension.

So you're claim is that being called an unlawful non-citizen means you have arrived illegally. As I have already demonstrated someone can arrive with a visa as a lawful non-citizen. They can then later become an unlawful non-citizen. They have not arrived illegally in that situation despite being called an unlawful non-citizen.

Politifact a certainly does not support your opinion that being an unlawful non-citizen under the Australia migration act makes someone an illegal. Neither does the quote from Scott Morrison. The only thing is from the UN convention. However, your claim of illegality has always been based on the Australia migration act.

Finally the verdict from politifact is not "true".

I'm sorry but that is not opinion. I've taken that from the information that you provided. Why link it if you think it's hand waving opinion.

 

[medhead]

If that's what you truly believe, then how can I dissuade you?

My quote from Politifact drew upon the words of the Migration Act, demonstrating that unauthorised entry was unlawful.

You actually claimed it was illegal based on the migration act. Unfortunately, that's not the case. The bit quoted from the migration is only a term used to classify people. Someone can enter Australia with authorisation and later end up being called unlawful under that difinition. This is not opinion that is fact.

 

[Skyring]

There is a distinction between unlawful person, and illegal immigrant. It is similar in concept to the different between a civil offense and a criminal offense. No amount of bluster and handwaving on your behalf will change that.

I'm sorry you see it that way, and while I can't force you to answer the questions repeatedly asked, or to present anything other than your own opinion, my position remains unchanged.

Seeking asylum is not illegal. Entering Australia without valid documents is.

That's my position, and I see it as that of a reasonable person.

 

[medhead]

I'm sorry you see it that way, and while I can't force you to answer the questions repeatedly asked, or to present anything other than your own opinion, my position remains unchanged.

Seeking asylum is not illegal. Entering Australia without valid documents is.

That's my position, and I see it as that of a reasonable person.

You've presented nothing but your opinion that someone is an illegal under the migration act. Unfortunately, the act does not support your opinion.

 

[Deleted member]

They're not "illegal".
They're not "queue jumpers".

What's morally and ethically bankrupt is a refugee policy based in trying to be so inhumane that refugees would rather be in warzones that seek asylum here.

They ARE illegal by virtue of their method of arrival. Destroying their travel documents when they get close. If they are NOT illegal why destroy their ID?
They ARE jumping the queue by virtue of their actions to force Australia's hand in dealing with them ahead of others applying for asylum.
I am not firming any opinion of them or their motives. Only their method.

 

[Mak404matt]

I haven't seen anyone trying to demonise refugees. Far from it. Both parties have lifted quotas, bent over backwards to accommodate them and made positive statements.

The negatives are reserved for those who pretend to be refugees in order to migrate here.

Equating illegal immigrants with refugees is a big swallow, though of course there are those who are waxing fat on the process.

I think this is the first time I've agreed with you 100% in this thread

I like the new policy in that it means that the people with $0, waiting in camps, have a better chance of getting an Australian asylum seeker place, as opposed to those that somehow have $10-20k to get to Australia.

The policy is about stopping the illegal trade of people smuggling, which IS dangerous, and IS illegal. I think everyone, on both sides of politics, has compassion for genuine refugees, and I certainly would not be against our intake being lifted to 27000 as is being suggested.

 

[Skyring]

You actually claimed it was illegal based on the migration act. Unfortunately, that's not the case. The bit quoted from the migration is only a term used to classify people. Someone can enter Australia with authorisation and later end up being called unlawful under that difinition. This is not opinion that is fact.

It is your own individual personal opinion. I've asked you to provide more than that, but you haven't.

You do see the point I'm making here?