Scott Morrison - How Long? (Part 1 - Continued in Part 2)

[Pessimistic]

I’m reading shouty squealed that people would now be boarding boats to Nauru.

Apart from this not being in the medevac bill, has he seen how far Nauru is? Surely as stop the boats minister he would know that?

 

[Gough]

Fair play to Porter this morning trying to prosecute the case without resorting to the shrillness that we've seen from his colleagues. It doesn't make the case any better but at least it's only the content of his case that makes him look unhinged.

 

[TimmeT]

When did he do this? This is just disingenuous.

 

[Heisenberg_]

When did he do this? This is just disingenuous.

Last week

 

[TimmeT]

Last week

He didn't block it as it never made it to the house for discussion and it was never put forward for a vote. Furthermore a motion does not and will not result in a royal commission happening either. So Scott Morrison never blocked it nor voted against it.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

He didn't block it as it never made it to the house for discussion and it was never put forward for a vote. Furthermore a motion does not and will not result in a royal commission happening either. So Scott Morrison never blocked it nor voted against it.

It must be wonderful to live in your fantasy world

He blocked it by extending question time so that the motion could not be bought on....i.e. HE BLOCKED IT

 

[Heisenberg_]

He didn't block it as it never made it to the house for discussion and it was never put forward for a vote. Furthermore a motion does not and will not result in a royal commission happening either. So Scott Morrison never blocked it nor voted against it.

Now tell me who it was that extended question time to stop it going to a vote?
He even said it with his stupid smirk that was exactly what he was doing

 

[sherb]

He didn't block it as it never made it to the house for discussion and it was never put forward for a vote. Furthermore a motion does not and will not result in a royal commission happening either. So Scott Morrison never blocked it nor voted against it.

Hmmm, I wonder why that was?

 

[Number37]

He didn't block it as it never made it to the house for discussion and it was never put forward for a vote. Furthermore a motion does not and will not result in a royal commission happening either. So Scott Morrison never blocked it nor voted against it.

He didn't block it like all those refugees on Manus are unlawful entrants eh Tiny.

 

[AM]

It must be wonderful to live in your fantasy world

He blocked it by extending question time so that the motion could not be bought on....i.e. HE BLOCKED IT

Bingo!

It's a source of amazement to me that people read Timme Timme's posts let alone respond to them. A complete blockhead.

 

[Punt rd end]

Meanwhile back at the airport

 

[TimmeT]

It must be wonderful to live in your fantasy world

He blocked it by extending question time so that the motion could not be bought on....i.e. HE BLOCKED IT

He never extended question time either. Question time only has to go for a minimum time of one hour. Some days it goes for this long and others it goes for longer.

 

[TimmeT]

He didn't block it like all those refugees on Manus are unlawful entrants eh Tiny.

ROFL I don't know how many times you have to be told what the law is, that International and Australian law are two different things. You even had the ABC fact check showing you that Morrison was correct and yet you are still trying to tell people that they never entered Australia unlawfully even though the Migration Act says they did.

 

[TimmeT]

Bingo!

It's a source of amazement to me that people read Timme Timme's posts let alone respond to them. A complete blockhead.

Oh look more vitriol from AM who hypocritically sooks when it is supposedly directed at him. Not to mention the utter hilarity of you calling anyone a blockhead.

 

[Number37]

ROFL I don't know how many times you have to be told what the law is, that International and Australian law are two different things. You even had the ABC fact check showing you that Morrison was correct and yet you are still trying to tell people that they never entered Australia unlawfully even though the Migration Act says they did.

Exactly. That's why they were all deported immediately and we have no persons in immigration detention on Nauru.

 

[TimmeT]

Exactly. That's why they were all deported immediately and we have no persons in immigration detention on Nauru.

You really are thick aren't you. As I have explained before to you in the refugee thread if you enter Australia without a visa you are an unlawful entrant and have entered Australia unlawfully. It does not matter if you are granted a visa later on as it doesn't change this fact.

 

[Maggie5]

Exactly. That's why they were all deported immediately and we have no persons in immigration detention on Nauru.

I think that the bottom line is come to Australia under an alphabet type visa, then claim asylum. Therefore not illegal, just dishonest and deceitful, although I think it may be unlawful to lie on an application form.
Oh and bring plenty of cash.

 

[Number37]

You really are thick aren't you. As I have explained before to you in the refugee thread if you enter Australia without a visa you are an unlawful entrant and have entered Australia unlawfully. It does not matter if you are granted a visa later on as it doesn't change this fact.

If I was thick I would be you.
Asylum seekers cannot be unlawful entrants.

 

[Number37]

I think that the bottom line is come to Australia under an alphabet type visa, then claim asylum. Therefore not illegal, just dishonest and deceitful, although I think it may be unlawful to lie on an application form.
Oh and bring plenty of cash.

We will have to get legal opinion from Tiny T QC on that.

 

[TimmeT]

If I was thick I would be you.
Asylum seekers cannot be unlawful entrants.

You're thicker than I will ever be.

Yes they can be.

I'll refer you back to this which ShanDog posted last week.

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

I will also refer you to Refugee Convention Article 31 which also states

Article 31 REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGE 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Finally I will refer you to what is a lawful and unlawful non-citizen as stated in the migration act.

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 13
Lawful non-citizens
(1) A non-citizen in the migration zone who holds a visa that is in effect is a lawful non-citizen.



MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 14
Unlawful non-citizens
(1) A non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen is an unlawful non-citizen.

(2) To avoid doubt, a non-citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen.


So even the refugee convention acknowledges refugees can and do enter countries unlawfully and illegally. Not to mention the fact that under the Migration Act of Australia you are an unlawful citizen if you do not hold a visa in effect.

So despite being shown with supporting material time and time again that refugees can enter the country unlawfully both in International and Domestic Law and meet the requirements of an Unlawful non-citizen under the domestic act you still try to tell me it is impossible for a refugee to be an illegal and/or unlawful entrant. It is blatantly obvious that you're simply delusional or think that if you say the same porky multiple times it will make it become true.

 

[Number37]

You're thicker than I will ever be.

Yes they can be.

I'll refer you back to this which ShanDog posted last week.

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

I will also refer you to Refugee Convention Article 31 which also states

Article 31 REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGE 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Finally I will refer you to what is a lawful and unlawful non-citizen as stated in the migration act.

MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 13
Lawful non-citizens
(1) A non-citizen in the migration zone who holds a visa that is in effect is a lawful non-citizen.



MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 14
Unlawful non-citizens
(1) A non-citizen in the migration zone who is not a lawful non-citizen is an unlawful non-citizen.

(2) To avoid doubt, a non-citizen in the migration zone who, immediately before 1 September 1994, was an illegal entrant within the meaning of the Migration Act as in force then became, on that date, an unlawful non-citizen.


So even the refugee convention acknowledges refugees can and do enter countries unlawfully and illegally. Not to mention the fact that under the Migration Act of Australia you are an unlawful citizen if you do not hold a visa in effect.

So despite being shown with supporting material time and time again that refugees can enter the country unlawfully both in International and Domestic Law and meet the requirements of an Unlawful non-citizen under the domestic act you still try to tell me it is impossible for a refugee to be an illegal and/or unlawful entrant. It is blatantly obvious that you're simply delusional or think that if you say the same porky multiple times it will make it become true.

Exactly. And like all unlawful entrants they're deported ASAP. And that's why we don't have anyone in immigration detention on Nauru waiting for 5 years because their unlawfulness has already been established under International & local law & the govt can deport them.

 

[NSWCROW]

lovely puff piece on mrs morriscum in the smh and on NEIN tonight

 

[NSWCROW]

Oh look more vitriol from AM who hypocritically sooks when it is supposedly directed at him. Not to mention the utter hilarity of you calling anyone a blockhead.

Not sure you should be citing sooking at all timmeh.....

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

ROFL I don't know how many times you have to be told what the law is, that International and Australian law are two different things. You even had the ABC fact check showing you that Morrison was correct and yet you are still trying to tell people that they never entered Australia unlawfully even though the Migration Act says they did.

We have signed and ratified the UN convention on refugees so that overrides local laws.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Refugee Convention Article 31 which also states

Article 31 REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGE 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

There you go. Call them unlawful, call them illegal, whatever, if it suits you. We still have a duty to receive them without penalty and assess their claims for asylum.