Forrest, this is really a stupid point to get hung up on. While its true that there were people who tried to circumnavigate the system in the way Franklin described, they are a small minority and its wrong to extrapolate from that to other situations or come up with wild speculation like:

"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'?"

The man who organised the SIEV X boat was not a 'hapless and unknowing freelancer'; there was no monopoly; there were a number of smugglers operating out of Indonesia at that time; there was no turf war between them.

I can make these comments with such certainty having researched this area which includes attending people-smuggler trials and speaking with smugglers.

“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'?”...or...”Feared compromising of undercover intelligence gathering could have likewise kept Australian vessels away.”

If that’s true it’s reprehensible. Was our government involved in that way? Worthy of investigation, surely.

You can always tell when Col's on particularly shaky ground - he becomes egregiously offensive and waffles even more than usual.

Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants because Australia remains a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Geneva Convention on Refugees, Article 31 of which provides that refugees shall not be penalised for entering a signatory country illegally. Ergo, S.14 of the Migration Act 1958 does not apply to refugees seeking asylum in Australia.

I hope that's "black and white" enough for our resident "selfish swill", who is apparently engaging in a bit of "misrepresentation" himself. Perhaps he should stick to counting beans and leave the legal interpretation to those who know what they're talking about.

No, Col. Article 31 provides that refugees who would otherwise be in Australia illegally are immune to penalty as long as they present themselves to the appropriate authorities promptly upon arrival.

In the case of SIEVX, of course, they had no opportunity to do so because their boat sank and they drowned - apparently with the knowledge of the Australian government of the time. Your claim that they sought to avoid presenting themselves to the authorities is pure speculation.

You can call me as many names as you like, but that doesn't disguise the facts that you're wrong about the legal position of asylum seekers and utterly callous as a human being.

Back to the beans, old chap.

CJ Moron “Your claim that they sought to avoid presenting themselves to the authorities is pure speculation.”

Not that I am a betting man but I bet you anything you like, even a personality (you are in desperate need of one) but the intent of those whjo arrive in the dark on ill equipped boats, often without papers is not to “present themselves to the authorities, quite the opposite.

Their intent is manifest from their actions, just like a person sticking their fingers in the electrical wall socket is intent on electrocuting themselves.

As to “and utterly callous as a human being.”

Call me what you want, your words have the significance of the nothingness which occupies the space inside a vacuum.

Oh vacuous one.

I don't need to call you names, Col - you do a very good job in this forum of displaying exactly what kind of person you are.