Forrest, I think you miss my point. Your speculations about borrowers and lenders is without foundation. That is not how the people who came to Australia in the 1999 to 2001 period financed ther journeys. It is simply not true.

I've already explained how they were financed. The reason I am so sure is that I have spoken with a number of the 1999-2001 arrivals about their journeys. Some are now Australian citizens and my friends. In Iraq they owned buinesses or were professionals. No doubt some borrowed but if that happened, it is more likely to have been from family and friends. It is quite common in collective societies for family members to band together and raise funds if needed to save the lives of relatives.

I know men whose families drowned on SIEV X. I know how the passages were paid for. What you are suggesting in relation to that boat in particular is absolutely 100% wrong.

Bronwyn “Seeking asylum is not illegal.”

But what these swill did is unlawful

Because they did not have a “Visa”

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.
(2) An allowed inhabitant of the Protected Zone who is in a protected area in connection with the performance of traditional activities 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.

These swill deliberately tried to evade Australia’s legal migration processes and enter the country without protection of asylum status.

The next point also needs to be considered, that these migration process evaders, whilst between wherever they claim to have fled from and arriving, in a clandestine manner, on Australian sovereign territory, went through other sovereign states from where they may well have been able to apply for “Asylum” status.

Instead these selfish swill chose to deny the Australian people, through the offices of the official migration civil servants, a right to determine their authenticity, eligibility and the possibility of any contagious diseases or criminal records or criminal intent which they might have or harbor.

After reading Col Rouge's latest odious distortion of Australian and International law above, I'd suggest that it's he - rather than the hapless asylum seekers aboard the SIEVX - who deserves the description of "selfish swill".

Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants, Col - no matter how much you'd like them to be.

Further to my post above, the following MR from the office of Senator Sarah Hanson-Young seems pertinent:

<< Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has demanded a re-think of the way Australia considers asylum seekers, with a reminder that fleeing persecution and seeking refuge is a human right enshrined in international law.

Some recent media reports have stated that 'illegal migrants' have been intercepted on the way to Australia.

"The myth that asylum seekers are illegal immigrants must no longer be perpetuated," said Senator Hanson-Young.

"A term like 'illegals' is not only offensive, but also inaccurate.

"It is not illegal to arrive in this country without a visa."

Senator Hanson-Young said that Australia had a responsibility to assist asylum seekers.

"As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Geneva Convention on Refugees, and a country that considers itself compassionate and a champion of the 'fair go', Australia must step up to its international obligations and reputation and swiftly consider asylum seekers for refugee status."

Senator Hanson-Young expressed concern about offshore processing of asylum seekers in locations such as Christmas Island.

"The Greens and human rights organisations alike are concerned about the 'out of sight, out of mind' approach to treating people who arrive by boat," she said.

"The current policy is sustaining a two-class scheme of refugees, with those who arrive by boat severely disadvantaged compared to others.

"The negative physical and mental impact of detaining people in extremely remote detention centres is undeniable."

Senator Hanson-Young said that the Australian Government and community should reserve their judgement on asylum seekers until their checks had been completed and they had either been granted asylum or not.

"Asylum seekers who arrive by boat must be treated like any other individual seeking asylum in Australia, and undergo identity, health and security checks promptly and fairly.

"While others continue to peddle a myth of fear around asylum seekers, the Greens will continue to campaign for a fairer, more compassionate Australia," she said.

Senator Hanson-Young will be attending the Migration Joint Standing Committee's Inquiry hearing into Immigration Detention in Perth and will be available for comment. >>

CJ Moron "Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants, Col - no matter how much you'd like them to be."

But they are 'unlawful', according to the Australian migration act.

You can mince and shimmy around the semantics all you want, such vacuous pursuits being well within your sphere of incompetence but

NO VISA = UNLAWFUL

Exactly as I stated and Exactly as described in the legislation.

Argue all you want but my reference is in black and white, not in the shadowy greyish hues of ambiguity and misrepresentation, which are the enveloping auras you veil your sub-standard ravings in.

Sue Hoffman,

Admittedly I was addressing Bronwyn's point as to the people aboard SIEV X being largely family members of secondary movement asylum seekers already in Australia with franklin's information. As you can see in one of my earlier posts, I claim no first hand knowledge of detainees or former detainees. You do, with respect to SIEV X, so I will accept what you say as to how the people on that vessel financed their trip.

I have to observe that your inference as to the generality of secondary movement asylum seekers during the period 1999 - 2001 having genuine asylum claims seems specifically contradicted in the case of at least the intercepted SIEV of which franklin speaks. Given that only 6% of those aboard that vessel qualified for asylum seeker status under the UNHCR criteria, it seems a reasonable speculation that some form of finance other than community donation or underwriting of loans was resorted to by the 94% on that vessel that did not qualify as asylum seekers.

When you couple that with the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence reports as to the existence of coaching schools in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, it seems reasonable to infer a degree of organisation behind this traffic above and beyond that of just community support. That degree of organisation costs money and demands a fee. Borrowing to pay it is a logical corollary. Coaching in meeting DIMIA requirements betrays that it was circumvention of Australian migration processes, not the seeking of asylum, that was from the outset, in the majority of cases, uppermost in the minds of those attending those 'schools'.

So with respect to SIEV X, what are we left with? A turf war in which hapless and unknowing freelancers in the boat-people trafficking business were made an example of by racketeers that really ran it, and intended enforcing their monopoly of the 'trade'? That would certainly offer an explanation of the lights seen on nearby vessels at night by survivors of the sinking. Feared compromising of undercover intelligence gathering could have likewise kept Australian vessels away.