Bonnot,
Your one eyed and blinkered vision is unbelieveable.

You say. "1. Under Australian Law, the government can (and does) detain all non-citizens who arrive by boat (irregular maritime arrivals) without a valid visa.

2. They are taken to Christmas Island and placed in immigration detention."

This agrees with what I have said. To gain legal entry to Australia
all non citizens require a valid visa. If one does not have a valid visa that person is breaking our law and we can, and do, detain.

You can use all the different terminology that you like; irregular arrivals, unlawfull entrants, it still means the same thing. they are breaking our law and therefore it is illegal.

Don't you think the lawyers that had the Malaysian deal quashed would act against this if they could?

Why don't you conceed?

End of arguement

I think are jails are like hotels when compered to there's,then they get a free plane fare home.We cannot stop these boats?.Europe has a much bigger problem?.
It will be a much bigger world problem in a few years time,

Banjo,

This settles it. Not one of Lexi's lefty links but from:

Stewart Foster
Director
Public Affairs
DIMIA

Note the following key points he makes (we'll the Bonmot numbering system):

1) "It is not true that an asylum seeker cannot be an illegal entrant or indeed be an illegal immigrant. Nor is it pejorative to use the correct terms to describe an illegal entrant or illegal immigrant"

2)" In some quarters to the use of the words 'illegal' or 'unlawful' or 'unauthorised' to describe asylum seekers arriving without Australia's permission seems to have at its root vigorous attempts by some in the community to mislead the public into believing a myth that all unauthorised arrivals are asylum seekers and that all asylum seekers have a right to enter a country of choice without authority and therefore 'can never be illegal'. This is just not true. The reality is clear in international law and has been made crystal clear by the High Court of Australia."

3) "Neither asylum seekers, nor refugees have a right to enter, without authority, a country which is not their country of nationality"

4) "The use of the word 'illegal' or 'unlawful' to describe asylum seekers entering a country without authority is standard international practice, not least by signatory states to the Refugees Convention. This is because the Refugees Convention (Article 31) explicitly refers to the "illegal entry or presence" of refugees who arrive in the territory of a country "without authorisation"."

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters04/Press_Council_28_June.htm

It might be a good idea to keep a copy of the link. The subject is bound to come up again. Refugee advocates have such poor memories --when it suits their purpose!

Yep, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and now - motivational reasoning.

Oh yeah, typo you said, are you sure of that?
Homework for you:

b o n m o t ... 100 times :)

.

SPQR, regarding your 'cherry pick';

You quote-mine the head of Public Relations (spin doctor working for the Howard Government) who wrote that "Letter to the Editor".

Foster wrote it because an independent tribunal had just ruled that the term "illegal immigrant" was innacurate. Stewart Foster's day job was to deflect bad PR from the Department of Immigration.

In confirmation of your 'confirmation bias' (pun intended), you (intentionally) neglect the full story:

In June 2004, the Independent Australian Press Council ruled that The Sydney Morning Herald was wrong to use the term "illegal immigrant" to describe asylum seekers - banjo clasps his ears and behaves like an osterich at this point.

The Press Council (made of judges, academics and media representatives alike) listened to the evidence, weighed up both sides of the SMH story, and ultimately upheld the argument that it was wrong to describe asylum seekers as "illegal immigrants".

As a result: the Sydney Morning Herald acknowledged that "illegal immigrants" was an incorrect description for asylum seekers. Moreover, the paper conceded that it should have used the term "asylum seekers".

SPQR, you can find the judgement if you want, but you won't.

Foster's letter was written in response to the Independent Tribunal's finding. The finding was never appealed - which the Immigration Department could have (but didn't) - so the tribunal's finding still stands, to this day.

No subsequent court case, tribunal ruling, anything - else has disagreed with the findings of the Press Council, SPQR.

SPQR, choosing to quote a letter written by a PR guy whose job was to disagree with the ruling of the Press Council is either deliberate distortion, or uninformed misrepresentation - you do it well.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/who-can-you-trust-to-be-in-charge-snapshot-of-a-nation-losing-its-faith-20110926-1kto6.html
Please read the link.
Please find time to consider its contents.
Can any student or just interested by passer in politics not see the truth in it.
Note the story includes a claim, one I believe, that its figures are no different world wide.
I happen to blame the disharmony on todays politics, including an insistence, on migration/refugee in take that introduces disharmony.
And that seeds planted today, are going to grow in to huge weeds, future generations make thank us for much.
But not this.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/not-prejudiced-on-asylum-issue/story-e6frgd0x-1226147275922
It is and always has been true.
Some do not wish to read or even consider views that are other than those they hold.
The first link, post above, talks of an increasing divide and distrust in our country.
While should doubt that, we should understand it is us, not politicians, who own the blame for that.
Brown, and his increasingly shrieking crew, told us they had Australia on side.
Clearly not true now or ever.
Gillards crew, maybe till the day they invented the Malaysian solution, have got it wrong.
Tony Abbott, a street fighter, surely not for ever? uses this issue and this country as a football.
It has far too much usability for him to seek to resolve the issue.
We? why is it our fault?
Who else is to blame. politicians perform these weird dances to?
To try to convince us to vote for them.
It is us who should demand of them, a resolution .
A middle way, that facts such as this country's in take of 10% of refugee world wide intake should not be hidden from us.
That at some point politics should present us with compromises, the only outcome we can expect.
Not fixed positions that demand only one view is considered.
I think it sad that Bob Brown, Tony Abbott Gillard must squabble not compromise, the first two?
Worse than sad,and our fault.