- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
24-04-2020 11:41 AM - edited 24-04-2020 11:43 AM
@rogevibe wrote:
We are paying $20,000 per day ( just under one whole pension per year ) to keep a most likely harmless family , the last now that the boat refugee express has been shut, who have accepting town support and who would most likely smoothly integrate - locked up like part of an unstopable invading swarm of dangerous parasites
And why is the tax payer having to bear the $20,000 a day,
because the husband, the wife, their lawyers & advocates persisted with appeals.
These are the people who are responsible for the hefty cost to the taxpayer by refusing to accept the findings of the courts.
The advocates then took what they helped create to further their argument and they manage to convince themselves that the government and the judiciary are responsible.
A article last year quoted a prominent immigration lawyer who was following the case where he said, excessive media coverage and activism was harming the family's case. A further comment was, it just encourages more people to make media campaigns.
If a provision or loophole within the law was found and they were able to stay, great.
To advocate that a law or laws be switched off and back on when it suits undermines the entire system.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 24-04-2020 12:40 PM
Jetho wrote: To advocate that a law or laws be switched off and back on when it suits undermines the entire system.
I think what you are actually referring to is 'ministerial discretion.'
Under section 195A of the Migration Act, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has the power to grant a visa to a person in detention if “the minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so”. The minister has no obligation to grant a visa in this manner, but may do so at his or her discretion.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 24-04-2020 01:21 PM
icyfroth wrote:
"We rely on the government to make laws, and we rely on the government to enforce laws. What good are laws if they can be broken on "sentimental grounds, by dubious entities looking to subvert the laws for their own agenda?"
just last week someone from the PMO broke copyright laws, not on sentimental grounds though
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
24-04-2020 02:34 PM - edited 24-04-2020 02:35 PM
@the_great_she_elephant wrote:Jetho wrote: To advocate that a law or laws be switched off and back on when it suits undermines the entire system.
I think what you are actually referring to is 'ministerial discretion.'
Under section 195A of the Migration Act, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has the power to grant a visa to a person in detention if “the minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so”. The minister has no obligation to grant a visa in this manner, but may do so at his or her discretion.
They have been denied visas 7 times, She-el. They have continued in their attempts to circumvent Australia's immigation laws by tying up the courts for years at great cost to the Aus taxpayer.
Why would the Minister feel disposed to grant them visas on compassionate grounds after their show of consistent disregard for Australian law?
In a Courier-Mal article published on Saturday night [2019], Peter Dutton outlined his argument as to why the family should be returned to Sri Lanka.
"They have explained their circumstance to every decision maker and judge and every one of them has rejected their claim for protection. That is that they are not refugees," he wrote.
Simon Jeans, an immigration lawyer who worked with the past 10 immigration ministers said: "the family have not been truthful in visa applications and said evidence suggested they came to Australia in 2012 and 2013 by boat as economic refugees."
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 24-04-2020 02:59 PM
@the_great_she_elephant wrote:Jetho wrote: To advocate that a law or laws be switched off and back on when it suits undermines the entire system.
I think what you are actually referring to is 'ministerial discretion.'
Under section 195A of the Migration Act, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has the power to grant a visa to a person in detention if “the minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so”. The minister has no obligation to grant a visa in this manner, but may do so at his or her discretion.
Jetho also wrote: If a provision or loophole within the law was found and they were able to stay, great.
Which relates to your reply.
To this date the minister has refuse to grant a visa, but no they didn't get what they want, and I will say it again, the husband, wife, lawyers and advocates continued the push and because they are now where they are, the same people try and claim how unjust it is to both the family and for the taxpayer.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 24-04-2020 06:02 PM
@jetho1680 wrote:
@the_great_she_elephant wrote:Jetho wrote: To advocate that a law or laws be switched off and back on when it suits undermines the entire system.
I think what you are actually referring to is 'ministerial discretion.'
Under section 195A of the Migration Act, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has the power to grant a visa to a person in detention if “the minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so”. The minister has no obligation to grant a visa in this manner, but may do so at his or her discretion.
Jetho also wrote: If a provision or loophole within the law was found and they were able to stay, great.
Which relates to your reply.
To this date the minister has refuse to grant a visa, but no they didn't get what they want, and I will say it again, the husband, wife, lawyers and advocates continued the push and because they are now where they are, the same people try and claim how unjust it is to both the family and for the taxpayer.
I realise this may require a huge stretch of imaination, but what do you think you would do if you were in their position?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
25-04-2020 02:13 PM - edited 25-04-2020 02:15 PM
The question you put forward was bound to be asked at some stage. I did not think you be the one who asked, I gave you more credit when it should have been less.
A question of this nature is usually asked when the person asking has nothing more to contribute,
nor was the question asked for the want of an answer, the sole purpose was to attain a response.
My response. Should not have been dishonest in the in the first instance.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 25-04-2020 02:52 PM
@jetho1680 wrote:The question you put forward was bound to be asked at some stage. I did not think you be the one who asked, I gave you more credit when it should have been less.
A question of this nature is usually asked when the person asking has nothing more to contribute,
nor was the question asked for the want of an answer, the sole purpose was to attain a response.
There is little point in asking a question if it is not to attain a repsonse.
My response. Should not have been dishonest in the in the first instance.
That doesn't answer my question though, does it? Which leads me to suspect the answer is something you either do not wish to imagine or are incapable of imagining.
And it has nothing to do with whether or not they should be allowed to stay
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 25-04-2020 08:16 PM
If I were in their position I would use every avenue available. Especially if the entire town in which I lived wanted me to come back.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Report Inappropriate Content
on 27-04-2020 04:56 PM
