Boat arrivals

[*crikey*mate*]

Have any unauthorized boats carrying people with the intent to seek asylum in Australia arrived in the past few weeks?

[lakeland27]

---

@poddster wrote:

That prompts me to ask another question.

Who is in favour of allowing the current unlawful entry into Australia, by boat or any other means?

Stand up and be counted 🙂

---

i'm for allowing asylum seekers in, its legal to seek asylum just as its legal for morrison to twist the language.

[just_me_karen]

No.

[lakeland27]

---

@boris1gary wrote:

What's a labbie? Is it short for labrador? I see it a fair bit on this forum, it's not something to do with a womans anatomy is it? Or maybe its strine? 

---

no, its something they picked up from the usual sources. some need prompting to have them use the term, but they took to it like..

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@poddster wrote:

That prompts me to ask another question.

Who is in favour of allowing the current unlawful entry into Australia, by boat or any other means?

Stand up and be counted 🙂

---

I don't have a problem with it, as long as they are housed and processed off shore like at Manusd Island. I don't think that anyone should be denied the opportunity to be safe.

I do however object to people who are given an inch and take a foot, or to people who want more than what we are able to give.

As much as I do feel for those in need of asylum, we have to make sure that the safety of current and future Australians is the first priority.

I also thionk that the processing system needs to change.

I think this was a Greens suggestion (think I read it today), but I agree with it, a person seeking asylum gets one shot at making their case, maybe one chance of appeal. If after that the answer is no, they need to leave. Not engage in continual legal processes and appeals that spans years,

[poddster]

Donna, you were the one who mentioned illegal I used unlawful and always have.

It would appear that you are not in favour of the fact that the PM was not born in this country.

Would that apply to a previous PM in the form of Gillard? and the current Deputy Leader of the opposition as well?

[boris1gary]

The tag on the bottom of your posts, is that meant  for only the things you say, or  does it also include the things you write?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

Unlawful? It was illegal a minute ago, I honestly could not give two hoots either way if they contribute to society, some complete ratbags come legally like the PM

---

I'm a little fuzzy on how Ms Gillard originally came to be our Prime Minister, could you explain to me how that happened?

[*crikey*mate*]

please

*blush*

[colic2bullsgirlore]

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/australias-two-biggest-lies-about-boat...

Marilyns words... but I agree wholeheartedly.. and so does the high court Full bench ruling

So, lie number one festers into a vile sore, as we continue to jail innocent people who have the right to come and claim asylum here, as stated in the Al Masri case by Justice Ron Merkel.

62 The Refugees Convention implicitly requires that, generally, the signatory countries process applications for refugee status of on-shore applicants irrespective of the legality of their arrival, or continued presence, in that country: see Art 31. That right is not only conferred upon them under international law but is also recognised by the Act (see s 36) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) which do not require lawful arrival or presence as a criterion for a protection visa. If the position were otherwise many of the protection obligations undertaken by signatories to the Refugees Convention, including Australia, would be undermined and ultimately rendered nugatory.

63 Notwithstanding that the applicant is an "unlawful non-citizen" under the Act who entered Australia unlawfully and has had his application for a protection visa refused, in making that application he was exercising a "right" conferred upon him under Australian law.”

This has been upheld by the high court in the Al Kateb casewhen the full bench stated:

As Gummow J indicated in Al-Kateb at [86] ff, the current Migration Act, unlike its precursors, does not make it an offence for an unlawful non-citizen to enter or to be within Australia in contravention of, or in evasion of, the Act.

31 Further, as Hayne J observed in Al-Kateb at [207]-[208] the description of a person’s immigration status as "unlawful" serves as no more than a reference to a non-citizen not having a "valid permission to enter and remain in Australia". The use of the term "unlawful" does not as such refer to a breach of a law.”

Imagine how different the 'debate” would be in this country if one politician simply stated this truth and showed the leadership to believe in it.

[donnashuggy]

I also thionk that the processing system needs to change.

The government isn't processing at all when they put them on a new raft to send them back