Stop worrying about boat people
I’m rather put out over this Boat people shit-storm happening here. It’s such a fucking waste of time and it’s pathetic that it is such a big issue for our government.
It also shows that most Australians are fucking stupid.
Tell me, why does the small amount of boat people coming to Australia get SO much publicity yet the illegal immigration through our airports get none?
The stats don’t lie. In 2009 there where 2750 people who arrived by boat. Of these, around 80% to 90% were found to be genuine refugees.
Yet at our international airports, there are thousands of people coming in and ignoring their visa conditions or who overstay. Most of these people are not refugees and in an estimate, there are around 50,000 of these people in Australia.
And why isn’t there a big fuss about this?
/rant
ZGeek owes its existance to Reardon & Associate Lawyers. If you need any legal help, wills or any legal service. Please contact them. We have used them for three years and highly recommend them.
+39: 
+13: 
+8: 
+7: 
+7:
Simple answer. Because illegal immigrants are those that cross our border without authorization (ie, no visa/background checks) and visa overstayers have been authorised to cross our border. The latter are just those guests who are pains in the arse that won’t leave your house until you kick them out yourself.
oh, i see your rant and raise you a rant of my own……
The worry about the current boat people influx is due to where they are coming from. Ie there seems to be a large number of people without ID, or visas, coming from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why this is a concern is due to the fact that there is a security issue in this, ie they could be militants trying to set up sleeper cells within Australia.
The problem, as the government sees it, is that as it stands we are taking the “war” to them to keep it from reaching our shored, so what is the point of taking the war to them if they are going to let into our country those very same people they are trying to kill over there?!
Furthermore, lets face it, fundamentalists religious people care little for out way of life…. In fact they hate it, and are willing to try to destroy it. Do you really want more extremist fundamentalists in our country? Especially ones with bomb building experience? I sure as shit don’t, and for that matter I would prefer it if the hardcore Christian fundamentalists would fuck off too!
I agree to processing of people before they are set free in our country. That fair, considering all the people who try to come here via legitimate channels get the same processing. I have friends who come over here from Iran, Samoa, and Pakistan who also don’t approve of boat people, for they see it as very unfair. For they had to go through the correct channels to get here, and think that the boat people should do so. Furthermore my friends came here to get away from the fundamentalist religious oppression of their homeland, so they definitely do not want the fundamentalist religious nutters from their homeland coming here and trying to turn this country into something they worked so hard to escaped from.
I am all for protecting our way of life, for that is what makes Australia what it is. We dont want any more fundamentalist nutters here thanks, we already have enough. (a’la Stephen Conroy, michael atkinson, fred nile, etc) Its a full time job trying to talk sense to our own nutters, let alone trying to talk sense to military trained nutters who believe that killing themselves and innocent people will take them to paradise.
/rant.
Those who fly haven’t given their life savings to people smugglers, so are a boost to the economy, instead of a drain.
It’s something that is simple for people to understand. The complexities of the majority coming on planes is too much for people to gather. People on boats however is another story!!!
It’s all part of making big issues out of minor ones that can get people jumping up and down about as ways to ignore all the real issues.
What’s odd is, so the labor coup was to what… turn labor into more like the liberal party during howards days.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants come by boat and come here without any checks on their person for diseases or links to organisations contrary to Western values. They become unlawful non-citizens seeking asylum
The vast majority of unlawful non-citizens are people who overstay their visa. Two thirds of these are USA or English visitors who entered the country legally and were checked for diseases and organisational links. Strictly speaking, they are illegal immigrants the instant their visa runs out BUT they were originally lawful visitors which means we know 100% who they are, where they’re from and what their health and links are.
I’d like to send you 20 million illegal Mexicans to enrich your country.
How would America harvest the crops the Government pays the farmers not to grow without the illegal mexicans?
With ~30 million unemployed Americans I don’t think there’ll be a problem…
Yeah but this sounds like you’re trying to justify the policies. When in the minds of most people that are all tough on immigration they don’t think even a fraction of that much through it.
It’s all the same issue, people who aren’t here legally, whether they over stay or catch a boat. The boat ones just elicit more of a response because of how dramatic it is.
It’s all about fear of people that the countries being over run by foreigners. Boat people is the most dramatic example. These days nonsense like, oooh it could be terrorists or whatever may be used, but that’s not why the polies see this as a golden issue.
Let me ask you a direct question right after giving you my view on the illegal immigration + refugee issue:
My view
The essential point of blocking the boats is to prevent people from profiteering from human misery. It is also to prevent Australian indirect participation in attempted murder (most of those boats aren’t sea-worthy and are in fact no better than leaky bath tubs). By making it easy for smugglers to get their loads over here, we are endangering lives and in fact, just this year, about 170 refugees (estimated) have already lost their lives attempting to make the crossing. I support the Pacific Solution and the excision zone set up by Howard. I also support a stringent 0 boats policy by interdiction and forced turning them back into Indonesian waters.
However, I recognise that people who want to get to Australia so desperately are unlikely to be terrorists – it’s simply too complicated to take the risk of bein in mandatory detention for 3 years, and risk being deported. Much simpler to get fake passports, get a visa, fly in and explode in Australian air space while yelling “Allah-u Akbar, sa’alam aleikum”.
I also think that our quota, after careful infrastructure consideration and upgrades, should be lifted from the present 13500, to a more internationally appropriate figure.
My question to you:
Do you want to stop illegal people smuggling?
Oh FFS.
Why would terrorists or militants pay tens of thousands of dollars to arrive on rickety boats, only to spends months or years in detention while their identities and backgrounds are checked and their claims verified, thereby putting them at far greater risk of identification than if they just bribed a government official in their country of origin to issue them a false passport?
It’s knee-jerk reactions like this that muddy the entire discussion of the issue.
We’ve had this discussion before. By definition asylum-seekers cannot be illegal immigrants if they have legitimate claims, as our international obligations require us to provide asylum. So, until their claims are rejected, they are neither legal or illegal in any real sense.
Which will result in people smugglers telling the people that take their boats to sink them as soon as they are turned away.
lol, it makes me think of this sketch;
“no that we’ve got the recipies, is there really any need for them to stay?”
Which will result in people smugglers telling the people that take their boats to sink them as soon as they are turned away.
We reserve our harshest treatment and opinions for those in the most desperate need and dire circumstances. It’s easier to not care about behaviour that you yourself would be more likely to commit than behaviour we only really come into contact with through movies and television shows.
Yes we’ve had this discussion before. You are wrong.
Australia signed and ratified the UN’s 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Article 31(1) of the Convention states quite clearly:
The illegality is obviously mentioned but what constitutes illegal entry? Thankfully the UNHCR explains that for us as well in a review of Article 31:
In other words, anyone who crosses our border without legal authorization, is an illegal immigrant. To make it short – it is not illegal to claim asylum, it is illegal to cross our border without authorization.
That would be most excellent
Because if they sink their boats exiting Indonesian territorial waters, then by the laws of the sea, our ships must carry them to the closest port – Indonesia.
Problem solved.
Why are they in more desperate need than those who do things the conventionally accepted way by crossing one border and applying for asylum at an embassy or a UNHCR office within their geo-region?
To me it seems that our boat arrivals are merely rich people (as compared to others from their country of origin) in a spot of bother, trying to jump ahead of people who have been patiently and legitimately waiting resettlement in third countries by the UN agency delegated to co-ordinate international response to refugee issues.
I’m talking about asylum seekers vs visa over-stayers.
Visa overstayers are deported or forced to leave as a matter of course – most don’t claim asylum. They just love the climate/culture/want to stay with family. And once they’re deported, we send them the bill for their deportation as well as ban them from visiting for a certain number of years.
Most of our overstayers are poms and yanks and other europeans in smaller quantities.
The reason why we reserve our harshest criticism for illegal immigrants entering by boat is because we have no idea who they are, what diseases they’ve got, etc. And we know they’ve already broken two laws at least. We know all this about visa overstayers – we know that they haven’t broken any laws getting here.
Are you deliberately trying to confuse things, or is it that you don’t understand the difference between ‘entry’ and ‘immigration’?
Asylum seekers aren’t immigrants, so they can’t be ‘illegal immigrants’.
And all the people who will drown in the process are just collateral damage.
Plus, why would they wait until they were back in Indonesian waters? As soon as they see the interception boat coming, they’d just start chopping holes in the hull.
Of course they don’t claim asylum, most of them know they couldn’t do so legitimately.
As I wrote, we care less about behaviour we are more likely to commit ourselves.
You mean, once they’re caught first.
Naturally, it’s ridiculous to come from the UK or Europe seeking asylum. Generally, visa over-stayers’ circumstances are neither desperate nor dire.
Ahhh how people interchange “asylum seeker” and “illegal immigrant” when it suits their rhetoric. People who arrive in Australia seeking protection are not illegal immigrants, they are asylum seekers. Whereas people who breach their visa conditions, such as the poms and Europeans you mention, are by definition illegal immigrants. And I absolutely agree with your stance regarding illegal immigrants. But not asylum seekers.
Trust me, of all the people who don’t understand, it’s not me.
There are two types of unbidden refugee arrivals – legal and illegal ones. The difference between the two is that matter of authorisation. Authorisation, is the legal term for it – the common term for it is called “visa”.
When you cross an Australian border you are an illegal immigrant if you do not have a visa to do so. On top of that you become an unlawful non-citizen seeking asylum when you actually request asylum.
And again – what incentive will people ahve to pay $20K to smugglers if they know they won’t even get out of Indonesian waters?
Some lives will be lost, I’m sure, but more will be saved. Sacrifice 1 to save a thousand? Sign me up.
Even if they approach the authorities by themselves, sometimes we deport them. Happened to a mate of mine – his aunt overstayed by 3 days, made herself known to the authorities but because she was Burmese background living in Laos she was judged high risk so they bundled her onto a plane and sent the bill to meet her at the embassy in Laos.
Anyone who crosses our border without a visa is an illegal immigrant.
You can reference any site that doesn’t have the words “green” or “left” in the title. I direct you, for example to the immigration lawyers Beydorwellen & Co:
[INDENT]The terminology for people who are neither Australian citizens nor the holders of valid visas has changed regularly. At various times, such people have been prohibited non-citizens, illegal immigrants and illegal aliens. Under the present legislation, the terminology used is unlawful non-citizen.
A person can become an unlawful non-citizen either by entering Australia without a visa or by remaining in Australia when they no longer possess a visa, either because it has expired or been cancelled.
[/INDENT]http://www.beyderwellen.com/immigration-practice-areas/unlawful.htm#overview
Would you like me to find the relevant articles and sections in the Commonwealth Consolidated Acts, Migration Act, 1958?
I’d stil pay $20k to avoid having my family shot and being strung up, drawn and quartered, even if the chances of me getting to Australia were long, wouldn’t you mate?
I’m sorry, the country you’re fleeing due to a reasonable fear of persecution or death is supposed to provide authorisation for you to flee?
Again you seem to have difficulty differentiating between ‘enter’ and ‘immigrate’. How can you become an illegal immigrant just by crossing a border? Surely you would have to intend to immigrate.
Now you’re advocating Australian border patrol boats intercept ships in Indonesian territorial waters?
Amended. I should have said, once they’re caught or approach the authorities themselves.
Absolutely wrong. The definition of “illegal immigrant” is someone who has moved from one state to another without any legal claim, such as a visa or a claim for asylum. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are applying for asylum, which means they are complying with Australian law.
Nope. I’d go to the nearest geo-regional neighbour country and apply for protection there either via their embassy or via UNHCR.
Just like my wife’s parents did when they fled the USSR.
Well isn’t that the whole point of the argument. To have these off shore processing places in order to run background checks? For if we didn’t, much like the current labor party policy, then yes it would be worth the risk to religious fundamentalists. For they would not have their background checked, and therefore increase the chance of getting in and ‘setting up shop’ as quickly as possible and also fly under the radar completely. For even a fake visa means there is still checks in place, plus the government will still know that there is 1 person here from over seas. Whereas if they come here illegally and unknown, then the government does not even know they are here at all. Something that is even better than fake identification.
You seem for forget that boat people are not asylum seekers, they are illegal immigrants. For if they were legit asylum seeksers then they would go through the correct channels, and come with identification and a visa.
Go back and read what I said before you start asking me such dumb and irrelevant questions.
Why on Earth would Afghanistan (for example) be giving authorisation to enter Australia? What kind of dumb-arsed question is that?
(And don’t even try to turn it back on me by saying that I said something like it. I did not)
You become an illegal immigrant just by crossing a border without authorisation. Welcome to Migration Laws 101
Nope. Just outside them.
And if the ships sabotage themselves in Indonesian waters, then it is the responsibility of the closest ship, irrespective of borders to provide rescue and escort to the nearest port.
Not according to our laws and laws we’ve signed up to via the UN. Anyone who crosses a border without a visa is an illegal immigrant.
Sorry, that there is a fact as I have shown you in documented links. You’ve yet to show me any evidence to the contrary.
So that means you have forist hand knowledge of the siyuation that these people are fleeing. Get you head out of your arse.
http://tamilinsight.org/mydesk/blog/ms-karen-parker-western-governments-bear-their-share-of-blame-for-the-situation-of-tamils/
How is any of that going to be different if they are processed here as opposed to East Timor?
Again, this is an example of not thinking. Having no identification at all is a stupid way to enter a country. How would you survive? Buy food? Get a job? Rent a house? All things you would need to do, and are impossible without some form of identification and funding.
Again, false logic. And rather silly. Legitimate asylum seekers have visas and go through correct channels, therefore boat people aren’t legitimate asylum seekers?
First hand? No I do not.
What I do have knowledge of is that Sri Lanka is not in our geo-region as defined by UN definitions. That means that under no conceivable reason should Sri Lankans be illegally crossing borders of three or four states and paying smugglers up to $100K for a family of four to get here.
What they should (and the huge majority are doing) is crossing the water border into Tamil-friendly India via cheap ferry and registering with the UNHCR for resettlement which is the conventional and legitimate way 99% of non-sponsored refugees get resettled.
That’s the proper, conventionally “legal and legitimate” way of doing it.
I haven’t forgotten anything. Sure, if you arrive by boat and run off to try and find work handing out leaflets by the train station, you’re an illegal immigrant. If you arrive by boat, and claim asylum, you are recognised by law as an asylum seeker.
And some asylum seekers do. Others, for whatever reason, don’t or can’t. They are still asylum seekers and whether they’ve come through the “correct channels”, as you call it, cannot be the sole determining factor in determining whether they have a well founded fear of persecution.
Incorrect. You are recognised by law as an illegal immigrant (which is why you’re immediately put into mandatory detention). You then claim asylum and become an illegal immigrant seeking asylum.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
To show you what a legal migrant seeking asylum looks like, all you need is a visitor’s visa to Australia, you arrive via authorised means, and claim asylum at the airport. You are then immediately given a visa extension unless you literally are full of shit and let out into the community without mandatory detention while your asylum claim is processed – that is the vast majority of refugees entering Australia, the legal way.
Save the heartstring pulling.
Ok, this is taken from the Parliamentary Library of Australia, aptly called “Asylum Facts”.
“Generally speaking ‘illegal immigrants’ are people who enter a country without meeting the legal requirements for entry (without a valid visa, for example). However, under Article 14 of the UN 1948 Universal declaration of human rights, everyone has the right to seek asylum and the 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits states from imposing penalties on those entering ‘illegally’ who come directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened.
The UNHCR emphasises that a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution should be viewed as a refugee and not be labelled an ‘illegal immigrant’ as the very nature of persecution means that their only means of escape may be via illegal entry and/or the use of false documentation.
…
Asylum seekers irrespective of their mode of arrival, like others that arrive in Australia without a valid 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.”
I could cut-and-paste the whole thing, but I think that’s more than enough.
Seeking asylum is easy. All you have to do is get to the proper channels, avoiding all those insignificant things like local militias and government agents trying to kill you and rape your women.
Therefore, according to you, legal unbidden refugee arrivals have a visa. So, the country they are attempting to flee from must have given them permission to obtain a visa from the country they are attempting to flee to, as well as granting them a passport. So, by default, said country must have given them permission to leave the country.
My original point stands.
So if I’m a Mexican citizen running drugs from Mexico to the US, and i’m caught in the US, i’m an illegal immigrant?
So, either
a) Your’e stopping ships in Indonesian waters
b) Youre stopping them in international waters
c) You’re stopping them in Australia waters
I fail to see how any of those solutions is not illegal or would result in them being taken to an Australian port.
Thank you for proving my point.
States are prohibited from imposing a penalty on illegal entry by people seeking asylum. I have never argued otherwise.
It’s still illegal entry though as defined by other UN laws. We’re just not allowed to punish them for it.
99.9% of refugees in the world manage. Yet it seems that those with $100K to spend on people smuggling are the ones affected by local militias and rabid rapists.
You’re clearly unaware how visas work. If someone wants to leave Afghanistan to get to Australia, they don’t need Afghanistan’s permission to apply for a visa to enter Australia. They need to walk into or call the regional Australian embassy.
Australia decides who is authorised to clear its borders, not other nations. If there is no passport, (which does happen) then the embassy is empowered to claim asylum on your behalf through due process and facilitate your resettlement.
My original point stands.
Correct. And you’re charged, serve your time and then are deported.
It is legal to stop a ship in international waters if you think a crime is being committed (San Remo Manual, 1994) – people smuggling. I’ve never said we should patrol in Indonesian waters.
Nice strawman.
No, your point has been that asylum seekers are illegal immigrants. Asylum seekers as well as illegal immigrants may enter Australia via illegal entry, but by definition they are not the same category.
But then they have no visa, and so are again illegal immigrants, just as f they had arrived in a fishing boat.
It is legal to stop a ship in international waters if you think a crime is being committed (San Remo Manual, 1994) – people smuggling. I’ve never said we should patrol in Indonesian waters.[/quote]
In which case, they sink their boat in international waters and the Australian ship takes them to the nearest port. If that’s always an Indonesian port, I’m betting they’re eventually going to get a bit shirty about all the Australian ships hovering just off their territorial waters.
Out of curiosity, is it a crime to intend to commit a crime in national territory while still in international waters? After all, they haven’t actually smuggled anybody anywhere as yet.
Oh dear. Apparently legitimate presentation of all options is now a strawman. How…juvenile.
You’re wrong on a number of points.
1. Nowhere have I stated that asylum seekers are illegal immigrants. Some are – a minority. Not all. That’s strawman number 1
2. Asylum seekers may enter Australia illegally and are therefore illegal immigrants.
3. Illegal immigrants enter Australia illegally. However they are not asylum claimants until they lodge a claim for asylum. Illegal immigrants are also those who overstay their visa.
It is possible to be an illegal immigrant and an asylum seeker but it is not psossible to be an illegal immigrant with a visa, while seeking asylum.
I hope that clears it up.
Actually I am wrong, but only on one point.
“Anyone who crosses our border without a visa is an illegal immigrant.“
This is where I was wrong. The act of entering Australia is not illegal. What is illegal is to enter Australia without a valid visa or claim for asylum. Asylum seekers do not fit into this category and so don’t enter Australia illegally.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Disagree. If you have arrived in Australia with a claim for asylum, you have not entered illegally. Therefore, as an asylum seeker, you are not an illegal immigrant. If you never claim asylum then yes, of course you’re an illegal immigrant.
Ditto.
While faux Jews muddy the waters of this debate, I’m reminded of a comment Beowulf made a few months ago when we were debating this issue.
He pointed out that the US has many more people for each quare mile of arable land, and pointed out the US has many more immigrants than Australia does.
Then he asked: Is Australia full, or racist?
The simple fact is that this country is full of white trash who panic at the thought of people coming here who eat different meals, speak different languages, worship different gods and play different sports. They’re xenophobic, small-minded, and frankly, they’re what I detest most about this country.
Import many of those who want to come here to enrich the place, and let’s export the gutter-trash who whine about others, with their southern cross tattoos and their Australian flags flying from their utes.
They’re the ones who need drowning. Not the refugees.
You are wrong. Completely and utterly. Convicted by your own words. “What is illegal is to enter Australia without a valid visa”. Your own words, right?
So when a boatload of people cross our border without a visa, are they illegal immigrants or not?
Yes or No answer with reference to legal documents.
I’m curious. In your need to mention Jews and attempt to trash Australians with the racist label, have you perhaps not checked Beowulf’s figures?
24.6% of Australians were born overseas. Only about 10% of Americans are foreign born. Per capita, Australia has the far higher rate of immigrants than does America.
Furthermore, white dudes wrapping themselves in Aussie flags and beating up a few lebanese and greeks is an event completely outside the normal. In the US, that sort of shit is par for the course. Just go to your local ultra-right-wing [STRIKE]nazi[/STRIKE] tea party. Secondly, the US refugee quota is 70,000 (2007 figures, don’t have the latest). Given the population disparity, we seem to be taking in about 3 times more refugees per capita than America.
The reason why the US appears to have more immigrants is because our immigrants, by virtue of no land border with anyone are predominantely European caucasians and slavs. So they look like us – white.
Whereas America, by virtue of being right next to a continent full of third world and developing countries, gets a bunch of south and central americans who don’t look white. They also have a metric shitload of illegals from the countries immediately below them. And their local hispanics are likewise added to the “foreigner” mix by virtue of speaking a different language and looking like the Mexicans.
Yes, “a boatload of people (who) cross our border without a visa” are illegal immigrants.
And a boatload of people cross who our border without a visa and claim asylum are asylum seekers.
I provided an authoritative source before, but I guess I needed to copy and paste more.
From the Australian Parliament’s Asylum Facts:
“The preferred terms for boat arrivals as used by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) are ‘unauthorised boat arrivals’ or ‘irregular maritime arrivals’ and, as noted above, people arriving by such means who then claim asylum are entitled to do so.”
No Australia is not full, for its mostly desert. Which cannot be filled…. nor lived in.
HOWEVER, we do have a housing shortage….. so yeah, we kinda are, in a way, over our population limit. So i guess you can say that we are full.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/18/2849944.htm
We cannot accept more people than we have houses, or places for people to live. Until all our citizens have somewhere to live first, i dont understand how people can say “there is plenty of room”. We need to worry about our own people before we can start worrying about others, who up until they show up uninvited were not our concern.
If all the immigrants are happy to live in the desert with no support nor tax payer funding…. sure, be our guests. But they don’t, because the desert is unlivable.
Btw, where do you live. Me and a couple of mate might just show up uninvited and help ourselves to what you own…. do you have a problem with that? OR is your house already full? (but i am sure there is plenty of room in the lounge room, kitchen, and bathroom for people to stay…although they are not designed for living quarters there is still space there.) plus i am sure that your pantry is stocked full of food for us all to help ourselves to as well.
Each country only has limited resources, and once they have gone….there is no more.
Read the old fable of “the grasshopper and the ants”. (and in case you miss the point, the “winter” is a metaphor for when all resources are no longer available).
I am no racist, nor a bigot, but i do believe in sustainable growth. But currently being that there are people who cannot find somewhere to live, then the growth is not currently sustainable.
No. They are illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. When they get a visa while awaiting their asylum application process to complete, then they become legal immigrants – or lawful non-citizens.
You cannot be a legal/lawful non-citizen without a visa, whether you are an asylum seeker or not.
You keep proving my point. Keep going.
Most of Australia can be lived in, just that most people prefer not to live in these areas, our major cities are pushed to capacity while our regional areas are screaming out for more people, particularly is those people have useful skills.
It’s the distribution that’s the issue, not the quantity.
So what? The indonesians hate us already and we keep giving them cash as “aid”. Tell them that if they don’t co-operate, the cash dries up. If they do, and participate, they’ll get more.
Any naval commander can stop and board any merchant vessel travelling in international waters if he suspects it is in the process of committing a crime. It’s how Australia stops and boards illegal people smuggling vessels in international waters.
Well according to the link that i provided earlier, thats not entirely the case.
Plus as you go further west, you will find that most of that land that is livable is actually needed for farming. Something that we rely on to eat, and for export which in turn helps our economy to keep going strong.
While zSpy is broken, discussion on ZGeek is too tiresome.
Leonid’s wrong though.
And Cars is too.
Got any evidence either I or cars are wrong?
Or can you not handle the truth?
Your line of argument is taking the approach of “if I say it enough times maybe it will be true”.
I’ve already supplied you with sources that delineate the differences between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant.
That is correct. You cannot be a legal non-citizen without a visa. However this discussion has never been about being a legal non-citizen and it is disingenuous of you to try to re-frame it as such. Illegal immigrants are legally different to asylum seekers and there are legal statuses to accommodate them as such.
I truly don’t see how what I provided proves that asylum seekers are illegal immigrants. Especially the big black bold bit that says “people arriving by such means who then claim asylum are entitled to do so”.
Scare the punters win a Federal election, it worked once, why not again eh?
Unfortunately Raidan, that is exactly what he does.
He lost the asylum seeker/illegal immigrant/boat people definitional war a month or two ago, and has bought it back up as thought his position wasn’t thoroughly shattered back then.
Which is precisely why I’m simply not engaging with him beyond pointing out that he’s wrong.
He knows he’s wrong. He just argues his position hoping he’ll convince someone (himself maybe?) he isn’t.
I’m going to explain this to you again.
An illegal immigrant is anyone who crosses our border or is in our border without citizenship or a valid visa. We both agree on this. Correct?
Any illegal immigrant without a visa already in our borders is entitled thanks to the UNDHR to claim asylum. Correct? Still with me or have you lost the plot already?
Now, when you claim asylum you don’t automatically get a visa. You are still illegal. Because you have no visa. You’re just an illegal immigrant with an asylum claim which overrides the right of Australia to deport you.
You can be an illegal immigrant and an asylum seeker. Just like how you can be an illegal immigrant and still be subject to Australian laws despite not being an Australian citizen. The concept of “illegal immigrant” and “asylum seeker” are not mutually exclusive. Deal with it.
So when a boatload of smuggled people crosses our maritime border, they are illegal immigrants seeking asylum. And they remain illegal immigrants until the day they get a visa to allow them residency as lawful non-citizens or citizens (if their claim is fast-tracked) in Australia.
This is in accordance with our Migration Act, it is in accordance with your quote (which proves my point and disproves yours) and in accordance with all the UN treaties we’ve signed.
Get it through your head. And don’t reply. Read the above again. And again. And again. Until you get it.
Simple. Just let it be known that if you (A) overstay your visa after legally entering the country or (B) arrive by boat as a refugee, you will be immediately flown back to your country of origin and that country will be recharged for every dollar spent on food / travel. No need to let them sink boats that could be either sold or sunk in predetermined spots as dive attractions or artificial reefs…
Free speech and democracy aren’t your strong points, are they Leonid?
Debates aren’t won by repeating the same incorrect position ad nauseum.
Really hate it but, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters04/Press_Council_28_June.htm.
It’s all semantics anyway, I for one welcome our little brown illegal brothers and sisters and look forward to reading their arguments with Leo on Zgeek!!
Except, of course, that contravenes Australian law.
And international law.
And, I should point out, those international laws? They were written *by* Australia and similar nations, and we forced them on everyone else. But now they’ve become politically inconvenient, we want to breach them.
It pretty much makes the country a bad international citizen.
If you’re really worried about boat people, or refugees, or migrants, or anyone else, try having a look at the newsimg again.
Pirate’s right – it’s a minuscule problem.
‘White trash’ is an Americanism. As is ‘Redneck’, and they both relate closely with black slavery( of which we had none in Australia). Try using ‘bogan’, isn’t racially loaded AND its Aussie.
“Americanism” is an Americanism.
Language evolves. Deal with it.
Leonid, I understand that you are arguing your definition of illegal immigrant, as opposed to how the Government defines it.
So I’m going to provide one last definition, again from the Australian Parliament’s library:
Illegal immigrants: persons who enter or remain in Australia without a valid visa or travel authority. The most common form of illegal immigration is visa over-staying. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants as they have invoked Australia’s obligations under the 1951 UN Convention and 1967 Protocol. They become illegal when they are denied refugee status and avenues of review and appeal are exhausted.
I’ll quote it again, from official source material, where the official terminology has been retained. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.
Unlike your arguments, it’s not just me saying it over and over again, while asking for evidence (which was provided amply) and providing none myself. Opinion is not fact, no matter how forcefully you put it.
Nothing I have quoted has been out of context, or of legal opinion only, but from official Government channels.
I haven’t been attacking you personally, but the distinction between asylum seeker and illegal immigrant is a tremendously important one. We are currently witnessing the hysteria that happens when people lump them together without a clear understanding of the difference, as well as some idea of the actual impact. And we’ve seen it in this thread with some misinformed views and assumptions regarding “boat people” & refugees.
I have nothing left to say except that this is why is it so important to realise that there is a difference, not just in semantics, but legally, officially, and a difference in the impact to our country, real or imagined.
Good one.
I thought one of the premises of your argument is that it is wrong to be racist. You then throw in the term ‘white trash’ as a slur against the majority population in this country who for built it into the desirable destination it is.
If racism is wrong then it is wrong to use it against any skin colour. no?
Whether you win or lose an argument on the internet, you’re still a retard.
(Yes this applies to all the semantics idiots in this thread.) Seriously, don’t you have anything better to do? I read the first 3 and last 3 posts and they are basically exactly the same…
The Australian Parliament’s Library is an invalid legal resource because it has no legal value. It is merely a reference handbook. It is no better than using an article from The Age or Green Left.
Check Kirko’s link above – it’s directly from the public affairs director of DIMIA (the guys who actually apply immigration laws, not argue about them).
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters04/Press_Council_28_June.htm
You are wrong. The Refugee Convention, the Migration Act, DIMIA, and an immigration lawyer I’ve linked to in this thread all say it.
The best you’ve got is a guide to political correctness. Can you find me a single law, in all of the Commonwealth (England, NZ, Canada, etc) that states that an asylum seeker is not an illegal immigrant when they enter borders via unauthorised means?
Furthermore I’m happy to provide you with info direct from the horse’s mouth (UNHCR):
They shouldn’t be labelled ‘illegal immigrants’ but according to Section 176 of the Migration Act 1958 with regards to detention:
The “designated person” in this instance is defined in section 177:
In other words, anyone in immigration detention (ie, all boat people) are illegal immigrants as detention is not allowed for a person with a valid visa as per section 182. Until a visa has been given, all people in immigration detention, asylum seekers or not, are in fact illegal immigrants.
Sorry. That’s facts.
Find a mirror.
Australia should set up processing centres in the countries that the boat people come from. Teach them English and some basic skills over the 2 or so years that they are there. Let them leave any time they want but don’t let them back in. Once their time is up and they have passed a test in English competency, and have a qualification in a certain skill or occupation, grant them a visa to Australia and find them a job in their chosen field. Make it a condition that they must be employed for the first 5 years they are here and that in those first 5 years they will NOT get any government assistance if they become unemployed. Also make it a condition that if they commit and criminal offence in those first 5 years they will be deported immediately.
We should give these people a fair go, but not a free ride.
That’s my two cents
If you could get the media to spruik it then it would become an issue because we all know that the majority of the voting public will only realise its an issue once the media tell them it is.
You make me lulz Aurelius. So much for freedom of speech eh? So if you’re concerned about illegal immigrants you’re white trash, xenophobic, small-minded, gutter-trash and need drowning. And unsaid, although definitely implied is that you’re racist. Above all that, you’re definitely not allowed to speak your mind.
The bit i dont understand is that Australia is at war with some of the countries that these boat people are coming from. Plus you are saying “let them in, they are fine!”
Since when do we get all chummy and friendly with the enemy? Why would we let “the enemy” into our country? that is bad policy, and a terrible idea.
Were the Jews in the habit of befriending the Germans/Nazis? Did England let the Germans into their country? Did Australia let the Japanese into the country when we were at war with them back in the day? But what if they came by boat?!
FFS people, some of those boats are coming from countries that we have been at war with for nearly 10 years. Have you all forgotten that already? They call us infidels and all infidels must be beheaded….. and you want to give these people a free pass into this country? If so, how about you just decapitate yourself now, and save them the time and the effort. Dont get me wrong i am not trying to fear monger, but rather just telling it like it is. (we have all seen the be-heading vids, and i do not want that done to me EVER!!! it looks like it would hurt like hell, and it is a very inhumane way to kill someone.)
That is why there is processing and ensuring that the people coming are legit, and not intending to hurt us and our way of life. Its not a bad thing. Plus if you were to put the shoe on the other foot, what if we sent a boat load of people to their countries? What would happen to them?
Besides, once these people are cleared we do let them into the country, and give them money and somewhere to live….. which is more than we do for some of our own people who have come by hard times. I don’t disagree with this, however the processing must be done or you may as well throw away tax payer money or send it straight over to enemy whom we are currently engaging with, and loosing soldiers lives to.
I have said it before, I have friends who come from those nations, and they agree with the processing, for they don’t want the nutters that they have come half way around the world to escape coming over here and trying to pull the same bullshit. They got processed and understand why it has to happen, and once they make it through they then encourage the processing themselves.
Australia is not at war with any country at all.
Oh yeah that’s right, we sent our troops over to Afghanistan for a picnic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
Yeah Australia is at war IN Afghanistan and Iraq, but we are not at war WITH Afghanistan or Iraq.
Yeah ok, so the people we are at war with are in those areas. Ok, agreed.
And where are some of the illegal boatpeople coming from? hmmm?
Which is why processing and checks need to be made. Sure some people who come from those areas want nothing to do with the religious war that is taking place, and want nothing to do with the religious fundies overe there…. which is why once processed and cleared, they are set free. However, letting in the enemy unchecked, and until they can be proven to be cleared they are to be considered the potential enemy, is straight up crazy.
If the Taliban are planning to invade us by sending a couple of guys in on leaky boats, well the war must be going pretty well I recon.
Its not about “invading” but rather about setting up cells and recruiting from the local community. The exact same way that the CIA have been known to operate. But i guess some of the taliban members were trained by the CIA back in the day, so its not a surprising tactic.
I believe the chance of terrorists coming on leaky boats is highly unlikely. Plus it’s not like they need to be careful about coming here.
The Australian government gives a free pass to Islamic terrorism and terrorism recruitment.
What is far more likely, and more dangerous to us, is the diseases they may be carrying and their potential to be spies or at least be indirect spies by virtue of family connections.
Seriously do you sleep with a shotgun under your bed. Relax no-one is trying to kill you!! Don’t believe the voices.
Shotgun…. no. The govenment took that off me years ago. But if i could i would!
Everyone should have a shotgun, just in case there is a zombie break out!
Laws can be changed Aurelius. Another one I’d enact, for every boat that has come from Indonesia instead of being stopped by them…I’d take the cost of caring for those people out of the foreign aid we give to Indonesia every year. That might stop their “free pass” mentality of just letting people pass through.