Stop the boats. 5k a head. (cont. in Part 2)

[Power Raid]

"My" people weren't let in at all.

We were forced to come here in a shitty, leaking ship with a ball and chain attached to our ankles.

Loaf of bread and all that stuff.

How many generation WA?

You would be a minority if more than two or three.

 

[Maggie5]

I wonder who is paying for these lawyers, if there is a fund, would be happy to donate - go get them. Show Morrison and Co that there are a lot of people that care.

 

[Maggie5]

STOPPING THE BOATS IN JULY 2014

* One boat intercepted with 157 people on board
* 41 people sent to Nauru
* 1127 asylum seekers in detention on Manus Island
* 74 processed so far (37 found to be refugees, 37 not)
* 1146 asylum seekers in detention in Nauru
* 168 processed so far (131 found to be refugees, 37 not)
(Source: Australian Customs and Border Protection Service)

So over 50% not economic refugees, mmm

 

[GuruJane]

Splitting hairs tin man?
Explain to me why the word illegal is constantly used in reference to asylum seekers.

Find the quotes and show us all where the govt has ever said it is illegal to claim asylum.

 

[slicedndiced]

How many generation WA?

You would be a minority if more than two or three.

When did I say that my forebears were from WA?

 

[Maggie5]

Find the quotes and show us all where the govt has ever said it is illegal to claim asylum.

Do your own work, why do the they use the word 'illegal'?

 

[slicedndiced]

Find the quotes and show us all where the govt has ever said it is illegal to claim asylum.

Jane, playing that semantics game awfully hard.

Pathetic.

 

[GuruJane]

And here is Scott Morrison telling Sarah Ferguson on Wednesday night how the 157 would be sent offshore if they took advice to refuse to see Indian consular officials. Not that Sarah seems to listen!

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4057541.htm

I always love Sarah's outstandingly rude and aggressive intervewing style. She never relents, no matter who is sitting opposite. But I think Morrison was getting amused by the end of it.

 

[GuruJane]

Do your own work, why do the they use the word 'illegal'?

Sorry - you're the one who keeps bringing it up, therefore you're the one who has to supply the links to demonstrate what you are saying is correct. In fact you should incolude a link every time you make the allegation.

So. Show us a quote that demonstrates the government says it is illegal to claim asylum.

 

[Maggie5]

Sorry - you're the one who keeps bringing it up, therefore you're the one who has to supply the links to demonstrate what you are saying is correct. In fact you should incolude a link every time you make the allegation.

So. Show us a quote that demonstrates the government says it is illegal to claim asylum.

When you answer the question, I may deem to communicate with you, until then, bye.

 

[slicedndiced]

And here is Scott Morrison telling Sarah Ferguson on Wednesday night how the 157 would be sent offshore if they took advice to refuse to see Indian consular officials. Not that Sarah seems to listen!

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4057541.htm

I always love Sarah's outstandingly rude and aggressive intervewing style. She never relents, no matter who is sitting opposite. But I think Morrison was getting amused by the end of it.

Having watched the interview live, Morrison was far from laughing as the extremely professional, well researched and articulate Ferguson refused to let him drive the narrative with his usual smokescreens and bullshit.

Don't cry because Ferguson refuses to accept the rhetoric in the manner of Bolt and actually conducts an "interview" instead of a propaganda piece.

 

[Power Raid]

When did I say that my forebears were from WA?

You didn't

I just connected the location of Fremantle and the comment of loaf of bread; and then asked a question.

 

[Maggie5]

Jane, playing that semantics game awfully hard.

Pathetic.

Mouthwash and brainwash.

 

[Jiska]

A term which is entirely accurate. Even the most partisan supporters of asylum seekers has to concede that.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

That article creates more confusion than it does clarification, if you actually read it from top to bottom.

It says "it is not a criminal offence under the act to arrive in Australia without a visa". It also says "by ratifying the refugee convention, Governments agree precisely not to treat asylum seekers as illegal"

It then goes on to say "the definition set out in the United Nations people smuggling protocol people who have come to Australia without a visa have entered illegally.

The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, regardless of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents.

The Convention stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions (e.g. entering a country without a visa) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum.

Correct. The convention allows for exemptions.

The ABC needs to have its fact check fact checked.

 

[Jiska]

What ever you think on this issue, it is not illegal to seek asylum. Government and others should stop using emotive language. Weak!.

The government has never said it's illegal to seek asylum, they have said it's illegal to arrive here seeking asylum. Good old Scotty twists the words, but the meaning is the same, and he's incorrect.

Here's a quote of him incorrectly suggesting that those arriving seeking asylum are illegal, ignoring the refugee convention to which Australia is a signatory.

http://www.news.com.au/national/imm...kers-as-illegals/story-fncynjr2-1226743669592

 

[Maggie5]

The government has never said it's illegal to seek asylum, they have said it's illegal to arrive here seeking asylum. Good old Scotty twists the words, but the meaning is the same, and he's incorrect.

Here's a quote of him incorrectly suggesting that those arriving seeking asylum are illegal, ignoring the refugee convention to which Australia is a signatory.

http://www.news.com.au/national/imm...kers-as-illegals/story-fncynjr2-1226743669592

Thanks for this, seems I got terminology wrong but not the inference. Then again wouldn't have the same impact.

 

[Jiska]

Thanks for this, seems I got terminology wrong but not the inference. Then again wouldn't have the same impact.

It's typical of Governments, both Labor and Liberal, to play on words to confused the public and push their own agenda. Morrison uses this tact, including changing the way his department refers to them, to influence the public perception. Technically under border laws, he is correct, however he fails to acknowledge and accept, as you pointed out, that the refugee convention circumvents that law in direct relation to asylum seekers. So while his argument that they are illegal "under this act" is correct (and that's what the fact check says in the link earlier), when you take in to consideration that that act is overridden by the refugee convention, asylum seekers are in fact legal arrivals. It's another classic case of politicians conning the public perception through words.

 

[slicedndiced]

It's typical of Governments, both Labor and Liberal, to play on words to confused the public and push their own agenda. Morrison uses this tact, including changing the way his department refers to them, to influence the public perception. Technically under border laws, he is correct, however he fails to acknowledge and accept, as you pointed out, that the refugee convention circumvents that law in direct relation to asylum seekers. So while his argument that they are illegal "under this act" is correct (and that's what the fact check says in the link earlier), when you take in to consideration that that act is overridden by the refugee convention, asylum seekers are in fact legal arrivals. It's another classic case of politicians conning the public perception through words.

The sad thing is that a majority of people actually swallow it.

Always have, always will.

 

[GuruJane]

Very wise of Maggie to run away again as she always does when asked to provide evidence for assertions or to explain/justify inconsistencies in her opinions

Here are the facts from our very own ABC. :

Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa

During the election campaign, asylum seekers have been referred to as "illegal arrivals" who "turn up illegally" on "illegal boats".
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison was asked about his use of the term at a National Press Club debate on September 3.

"I've always referred to illegal entry," Mr Morrison said.
"It's the same term that's used in Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, on the convention on people smuggling which defines illegal entry.
"People have illegally entered Australia when they've come without a valid visa."

..........

The verdict

Mr Morrison is correct.
Based on the definition set out in the people smuggling protocol, people who have come to Australia without a valid visa have illegally entered the country.
That is the case even though these people have not committed any crime, nor broken any Australian or international law.

Hard to get clearer than that.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

And the UN Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants signed by Australia in 2001 and ratified in 2004?

http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/Conventions/dcatoc/final_documents_2/convention_smug_eng.pdf

 

[Jiska]

The sad thing is that a majority of people actually swallow it.

Always have, always will.

Absolutely. And not just in relation to this particular topic.

I don't really want to derail this thread, but, same goes for the mining tax, which, in theory, was a great thing for Australia and its future. Unfortunately though, it was sold the way it should have been. Scare mongering by big multinationals that fund election campaigns won out in the end.

This article is well worth a read: http://www.progressivepress.net/us-fiscal-debate-could-learn-from-norway/

 

[slicedndiced]

This is the same Morrison who believes that some Pastor can "lay his hands upon thee" and channel the power of God to heal your illnesses.

 

[Maggie5]

It's typical of Governments, both Labor and Liberal, to play on words to confused the public and push their own agenda. Morrison uses this tact, including changing the way his department refers to them, to influence the public perception. Technically under border laws, he is correct, however he fails to acknowledge and accept, as you pointed out, that the refugee convention circumvents that law in direct relation to asylum seekers. So while his argument that they are illegal "under this act" is correct (and that's what the fact check says in the link earlier), when you take in to consideration that that act is overridden by the refugee convention, asylum seekers are in fact legal arrivals. It's another classic case of politicians conning the public perception through words.

You put it so much better than me. I get a bit emotional as I see this situation through humanitarian eyes and not Libs/Labor.

 

[GuruJane]

So while his argument that they are illegal "under this act" is correct (and that's what the fact check says in the link earlier), when you take in to consideration that that act is overridden by the refugee convention, asylum seekers are in fact legal arrivals. It's another classic case of politicians conning the public perception through words.

The lawyers who fact checked for the ABC based their opinion on the People Smuggling Protocol in their verdict. Couldn't be clearer.

 

[GuruJane]

The lawyers who fact checked for the ABC based their opinion on the People Smuggling Protocol in their verdict not on refugee convention. Couldn't be clearer.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Very wise of Maggie to run away again as she always does when asked to provide evidence for assertions or to explain/justify inconsistencies in her opinions

Here are the facts from our very own ABC. :

Hard to get clearer than that.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-people/4935372

And the UN Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants signed by Australia in 2001 and ratified in 2004?

http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/Conventions/dcatoc/final_documents_2/convention_smug_eng.pdf

So in other words, the Liberal government decided to make them illegal by giving them a label, even though they have not broken any law.