I read this morning that so far for April we have received 41 illegal entry vessels with 3023 illegals on board.

I would certainly clasify that as an invasion and the government is doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

It could help their budget if they made a realistic effort to prevent the boats from arriving. Not even to mention the inevetable loss of life if the rate keeps up. So far this government is responsible for about 1200 lives lost.

Obviously the government has neither the will or the capability to do anything.

The enormous budget black hole and the prospect of us all having to pay more in new taxes and charges should surely further strengthen the push to stop the boats.

The budget is not just about income, it is about the expenditures as well. This asylum seeker mess has amounted to a huge expense, and one that is set to increase rapidly.

The budget mess should absolutely translate into a maximised effort to reduce expenses, first and foremost by STOPPING onshore asylum seeking… and greatly reducing immigration.

Banjo, I would suggest that the first lot of 'illegal immigrants' to arrive on our shores hundreds of years ago would have constituted a large invasion, wouldn't you?

I doubt you are concerned that much about the lives lost at sea, but more so the 'invaders' .
They aren't illegal until processed and sent back home. If they successfully stay here, then they were true asylum seekers, so they did what was right for themselves.

>>I would certainly clasify that as an invasion and the government is doing absolutely nothing to stop it.<<

From wikipedia:

>>An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof.<<

If we are in the midst of an invasion then it's a bit of a damp squib. 3000 unarmed civilian peasants? Some military offensive. I think even the French could manage to repel an invasion like that.

Cheers,

Tony

Suse if you think it is not illegal to enter Oz waters without permission, just check out what happens to a pom, yank or some other nationality, who sails a boat into Oz, with out all the necessary paper work.

Hasbeen,
Try to sail a boat out of Australia & then back in again & you'll know what illegal arrival means. I know that you know but the silly academic do-gooders haven't a clue. We really need a national service asap. to make these morons understand.

and lets not forget all those "illegal" Brit/UK backpackers..they are everywhere ! These are people who have overstayed their visa or working illegally, or are on a student visa but is not studying
or those clowns in a fake marriage or relationship just to obtain a visa. We can be seen everyday in our shopping centres, bus terminals, hostels, airports, trains and hitch hiking...but hey.. lets all get hysterical about some people on leaky boats we see on the six o'clock news

The major problem that I see is they only have to say I am an asylum seeker.
They don't have to prove it, but the government has to prove they are not asylum seekers.

The dice are loaded against the government.
The UNHCR ratification act is redundant. It must be replaced.
It is reaching the stage where the navy will have to say, "Sorry we can
no longer afford this, we will tow you to Ashmore Reef and you can
phone for the smugglers to tow you home."

I think that is what I would do. They could then notify Indonesia that
there is one of their boats there asking for a tow.

Something like that will have to be done.

Suseonline - 85% of those arrivals were not on welfare for life or medical refugees as we seem to be getting more of now or they did not GET PREFERENTIAL HOUSING ETC WHILE WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF HOMELESS AUSTRALIANS.

Bazz - We could also stop the navy going hundreds of KM's into Indonesian waters to bring them to Australia.

Rainier - Those "Brit/UK backpackers" are not on the dole or being given houses at the expense of homeless Australians.
Quote "lets all get hysterical about some people on leaky boats" an expected 30 + thousand is not some it is a LOT.

Philip;
I think the rule is that warships can only enter a foreign governments
territorial waters by invitation. If they are requested they would
normally tow to an Indonesian port I would think.
I always thought they were only picking up in Australian SAR areas.

I am very upset with that number of arrivals, my targeted number would be 1 every 100 years.
They are not refugees, do not let the bleeding hearts con you.
Liberals too will face some, but I think just their election will halve the numbers.
Labor got it very wrong, not helped by Abbott, wait, and see how/if he can fix it.
Bribing INDONESIA, bigger bribes than the one criminal smugglers pay their POLICE ARMED FORCES AND POLITICIANS to let them come, may be the only answer.
Fraud and bribery are culture in that country, we may save money by playing their game.

Bazz - The rule you stated is right BUT the people picked up are transported to Christmas Island on one occasion the boat was approx 15 KM's from an Indonesia island Indonesia could not find them we did go 330 KM and they were taken to Christmas Island.

There has only been 1 case in the past year that I recall where they were handed back to Indonesia.

Belly Quote "not helped by Abbott" I don't blame him a swap of 4,000 people for 800 + we have to pay the costs of all IS ABSOLUTELY STUPID.
That 4,000 will need to be housed that equals more homeless Australians who will not be able to afford the prices the Government will pay so they can say we have no homeless refugees.

This article was originally published in
Online Opinion on 21st October 2011, in a
slightly different form:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/australias-two-biggest-lies-about-boat-people/

I think you misunderstand Lexi,
It is not illegal to claim asylum but it is illegal to arrive in other
that an official port of entry.
It is also illegal to destroy your documentation and to hide your nationality.

That cartoon at the top is quite ironic and indeed accurate.
However aborigines had not progressed for 10s of thousands of years
and the rest of the world had gone well past them.
They never even built stone houses surely a minor step in comfort.

It could have been worse, some others might have arrived.
Ask the Tibetans.

Poor old Rainier,
Just can't refrain from being stupid can ya. Those brits etc you try to taint with the same ugly colour as yourself & the rag & sandal brigade do not cost us as do the likes of you.

Tony Lavis>>If we are in the midst of an invasion then it's a bit of a damp squib. 3000 unarmed civilian peasants? Some military offensive. I think even the French could manage to repel an invasion like that<<

Why does everyone knock the French? They have the Legion and they are no pussies, not to mention the nukes and the means of delivering them.

Tony old fruit, not an invasion in the military context…a fiscal invasion. In calendar year 2012 it cost Australian taxpayers over 1 BILLION dollars to run the show, and that is just to land them

The immediate cash flow via benefits, the housing and all the other stuff including the whopping ongoing legal bill is separate and additionally ongoing.

I have no issue taking refugees from UN camps, I do not begrudge helping them with welfare and finding accommodation….but I begrudge these passport destroying fare paying parasites. Three thousand illegal freeloaders in April….and 3000 poor bastards sitting somewhere in tents just had their wait extended and hpoes dashed. I am on the side of those with nothing.

Cmon Tony, you know that is factually correct.

We could afford lots more boat people with the money saved if we got rid of the Navy & our defence Force as a whole. I mean, they're not deterring anyone wanting to come here so why have them ? What a waste all round !

Hi All
Perhaps if the capitalist and militarist forces of our "righteous", "bleeding heart" and "do gooder" western alliance had kept our greedy noses out of the Asian , middle eastern and african countries we would have avoided stirring the hornets nest from which the "illegal asylum seekers" are risking their lives in trying to escape. Dealing with these desperate people is Australia's problem and obligation under international agreement but by supporting American expansionism we are also a party to the causation.
Den 71

3,000 in one month = 36,000 in 12 months, how many do you think is an invasion Tony? how long can we support this many people coming into the country ? where are the houses, jobs for these folk,? what happens when their families arrive? How will we feed them? what about Australian taxpayers paying for queue jumpers care at the expense of services for the elderly, single mums, homeless etc?

Easy saussie, we will just cut funding on things in order to pay the bill.

Uni funding cuts are just the beginning I am afraid.

As far as being invaded, of cause we are being invaded, albeit, peacefully (for the time being) at least.

Our main problem is we can't stop them when unarmed, so how will we fair if and when they arrive armed.

I say we need the big stick approach, NOW!

<<3,000 in one month = 36,000 in 12 months...>>

Way, way, way too conservative Saussie.You didn't factor in how many relos they are going to sponsor through one guise or another.

And then there's the hidden costs,such as when one or other of our big brother commissions inform us --as they inevitable will -- that "their studies" have found former refugee scammers are under represented at company board level and we need to introduce special measures to redress that.

And the other real biggy --opportunity cost-- while we are occupied with all of the above we will not have the time nor money to ensure that those poor unfortunates who have slipped through the cracks of our education system are brought up to speed --so poor bighters like DENT71 will have to get by with only their rudimentary knowledge of world affairs --and continue to vote for the Greens.

<3,000 in one month = 36,000 in 12 months
That's the starting figure, wait till they start breeding here! You'll be facing your neighbor's backside at prayer 5 times a day before long if we don't put a stop to this now ! First move get rid of Labor & Greens.

I just don't know how we can get out of this mess.
You just do not have the money to maintain the existing expenditures
let alone all the latest schemes. It just cannot be done.
It is not just the money that has run out, it is the credit also.
Money is being invested here as an act of desperation, but as soon as
our AAA rating ends it will go in one big whoosh. Our credit with it.
When that happens government salaries don't get paid, the dole does
not get paid either and the pensions just don't appear in the bank.

The result will be that the boat people will receive nothing and will
be just left on the beach.

The pollies just don't understand what is going on.
They seem to think that what has happened in Cyprus, Greece, Spain
etc, cannot happen here !
Without some dramatic change of direction, it will happen here.

Well, I am a bit surprised that Lexi and Susie are still pushing the line of "it is not illegal to seek asylum in Australia". these two posters have been here for a long time and this issue of boat people has been debated many times. So they would be well aware that on many occasions quotes from the DIAC website, under visas, states clearly that it is unlawfull to enter Australia without a valid visa. Therefore what they are doing is illegal. This has been pointed out many many times, but still they persist with spin seeking to promote some incorrect legallity of boat people actions.

As well, if the actions are legal, on what grounds do we detain them?

We do not detain arrivals wily nilly, we have to have grounds for detainment. Persons arriving with valid visas are not detained, but free to go about their business. For example, young Laura Dekker arrived in Darwin by boat and spent serveral weeks there free to do as she wished before she departed. She was not locked up or detained. So just because a person arrives by boat does not mean they are detained.

The simple fact is that it is illegal to enter Australia without a valid visa and that is the only reason we can detain unlawfull arrivals.

This whole saga has been a monumental stuff up by Labor, firstly by Rudd putting out the welcome mat and showing weakness in the 'Oceanic Viking' matter and the ongoing failure to properly address the issue. The illegals now know we are so soft that they do not believe what our government says and on they come. To change this it will now take very serious and draconian methods to get the message to them that they will not get what they seek, no matter what.

The cyclone season has ended so we can expect more and more illegal arrivals. More arrival records broken. It surely is an invasion.

Dear Banjo,

I'm not pushing any line. I'm simply giving links
that explain the legalities involved. People have to
be assessed and proven to be "illegal." It is not
illegal to ask for asylum - which is why we have
detention centres. People's status must be ascertained
first before labels are given. To tar them all with the
brush of "illegality" is simply wrong. But we have
covered this ground before. It's just that you keep on
repeating the same nonsense.

SPQR
Thanks for your response. I must have made a DENT in your conscience. Perhaps if I keep reading your posts I may expand my knowledge of world affairs, sorry to have bitten you, you left a sour taste.
DEN 71

Lexi,
You are right that it is not illegal to ask for asylum.
You are wrong that it not illegal to enter other than at a port of entry.
You are wrong that it is not illegal to arrive without a visa from 1st safe country.
You are wrong that it is not illegal to destroy your documentation.
You are wrong that it is not illegal to sell your passport.
You are wrong that it is not illegal to travel through many countries and not claim asylum at the first safe country.

I just cannot see how they can be said to be legal !

Dear Bazz,

Here are the facts:

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants

Asylum seekers who come by boat are NOT illegal immigrants.

The Migration Act 1958 allows for entry to Australia
without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum regardless
of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or
identity documents.

The term "illegal immigrant" was originally used to describe someone that has entered the country without the correct documentation or not by a legal port of entry.

Technically, I as an Australian citizen if I come in by sea and bypass customs and immigration would be an illegal immigrant, even though I have the right to be here.

@Lexi,

<<Dear Bazz,
Here are the facts:>>

No Lexi, you tried that caper before (I think you even used the same old crappy link!)

And it was pointed out to you, demonstrated to you, proven to you, that the the Dept of Immigration considers them illegals.
(and every other thinking person would add the descriptor shonks)

But you don't seem to be able to retain things (a symptom of old age?)

I'll book you up for the remedial class with Den71 (I think that the "71" in his handle is his age --you will be able to reminisce about old times!)

Capper s/r caper --then again, capper might be appropriate too!

Just to answer anyone who dismisses the use of 'invasion' by some, Defence planners have long assessed the movement of foreign civilian 'refugees' to the North as a credible, and very difficult to handle, threat.

The population in the north is relatively low and the number of foreign illegals, or even those granted TVs or citizenship does not need to be high for a foreign power to claim that it shares more cultural similarities with the local population than do 'white' Australians. Next is to claim the need to expand for a teeming population.

What exactly would the Gillard government do if there was a small flood (close to it now) and (say) the Indonesians moved 'police' (aka their army commandos) in to ensure order and the protection of their nationals?

While Gillard sits on her derriere and her front bench finds excuses for the 'asylum seekers', a real flood of thousands more could land.

Gillard would have to move the few precious military assets we have, especially the bombers to tyhe extreme south of Australia (as has happened before) and the army would be reduced to observers from the distance.

We are in the very dangerous position of having demonstrated to all and sundry, the greedy eyes abroad for our resources, that Australians (through their government) do not value their freedom, borders and country enough to vigorously assert our sovereignty and decide who comes here and who does not.

For God's sake, the government itself bends over backwards, and forwards too, to excuse its alleged 'racism' to countries with such offensive social policies and records as India. 'Nuff said.

Roll on September'13, when the long suffering Aussie citizens get to put the garbage out in Canberra!

lexi,
It has been pointed out here on OLO many times that IT IS ILLEGAL FOR A NON CITIZEN TO ENTER AUSTRALIA WITHOUT A VALID VISA. This is confirmed by the DIAC, in section on visas. That is why they can be detained.

I suggest that you know this full well but you and others disregard it in effort to paint the illegals in a more favourable light.

The truth is the illegals are rorting the system. They are liars and cheats who bribe their way to Aus with the full intention of lieing to our officials to gain residence. Their entry into Aus is definately unlawfull. They are purely gate crashing our country to live off our fat and milk us for everything they can. They have no scruples and you and others are aiding and abetting them.

They are in the same catergory as others who cheat the social security system. It is to our shame that we allow the government to condone it.

Lexi - THEY ARE ILLEGAL, no one has been able to take Abbott to court for saying so or get him to retract it.

The UN does not want people to use the term "illegal" because they KNOW IT IS ILLEGAL UNDER OUR LAW.

Lexi, you might be right about the visa, but we know they had passports
and passed through several countries so why are they getting rid of them ?
That is an attempt to mislead the immigration people is it not ?
That would be illegal in any court.
Very few of them are genuine refugees. It is just that the govt can't
prove they are not refugees, because they have sold or dumpted their passports.

Lexi,
Below is a section of the DIAC website that exlains about immigration detention and who is unlawfull.

i do not do this for every poster, but I think it is important that you clearly understand wgat unlawfull means.

Oh, and unlawfull and illegal have the same meaning.

http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/about/background.htm

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the link.

However, the link that you've given me
does not talk about refugees and asylum seekers.
Who it refers to are
immigrants who want to come to this country
seeking a better life. Refugees and asylum
seekers are people in
a totally different category to the ones mentioned
in your link. That's where your confusion lies
and it is understandable.

As I keep stating the Migration Act 1958 allows for
entry to Australia without a visa for the purpose of
seeking asylum. It 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.

Of course if these people are assessed and found not
to be genuine refugees - then their situation changes.
They are not granted permanent residency.
However, most of them have been found to be refugees
and have received permanent residency in Australia.

It may interest you to know that many who did not originally
receive permanent residency did so on appeal, later on.

Refugees and asylum seekers are people in a totally different category..
Lexi,
Yes & agenda driven invaders are yet another category.

Lexi,
The section I put up refers to PEOPLE, no exemptions given.

Are to indicating that people that become asylum seekers are not people?

The section also refers to the Immigration act, so if there were exemptions it would say so. You have been misled.

You are good at research, so you find the relevant section of any Act that gives exemption to ANY person not to comply with Australian law.

I believe you will find that although they are unlawfull entrants we have undertaken not to charge those that subsequently claim protection. We simply do not press court charges, but of course detain them under the same act.

Who is 'unlawful'?

People who are not Australian citizens are 'unlawful' if they do not have a valid visa giving them permission to be in Australia. Usually, 'unlawful non-citizens' are people who have:
• arrived in Australia without a visa
• overstayed their visa
• had their visa cancelled

Lexi,
This section of the DIAC website shows the travel documents required

http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/border-security/travel/documents/

You can scroll down a bit to find the section for non Australians and NZ citizens. I have reproduced it below.

Travel documents required for all other travellers

All travellers other than Australian and New Zealand citizens need to present the following documents to officers in immigration clearance:
•a valid passport or other acceptable travel document
•a valid visa or authority to enter Australia (including electronic visas)
•a completed and signed Incoming Passenger Card, including health and character declaration.
See: Passenger cards

Anyone who arrives without a valid travel document, visa or authority to enter Australia, may be refused entry to Australia or delayed until their identity and claims to enter Australia have been confirmed.

You can see clearly that a valid passport and a valid visa is required. Please note it does say ALL travelors.

Dear Banjo,

You keep quoting from the same link which
to me indicates that you're only interested
in your own agenda. Therefore I shall leave
you to it. I'm no longer interested in giving
you a further platform for you to keep stirring.
We've covered this ground so many times in the
past - I don't care to keep on going around in
circles. There's no point to it.

I shall see you on another thread - preferably on
a different topic.

cont'd ...

BTW: Banjo, if you regard asylum seekers and
refugees as "travellers," then I guess that says
it all.

see you on another thread
Lexi,
You do bail out rather easily instead of coming up with solutions, not a good show at all !

Dear Individual,

Banjo and I have covered this
ground so many times in the past.
As I tried to explain. I don't
see the point of going around in
circles.

It's not bailing out at all
it's simply walking away when you see
that nothing constructive is going to
be achieved.

Dear Bazz,

Because they're Australian citizens?

Just like the jobos, ferals, criminals, and others
we bother with and support.

Dear Bazz,

Oops -

Sorry, I posted my previous post on the wrong
thread.

SPQR
I am disappointed that you resort to the weak position of denigration and seem unable to add to my education on world affairs in this forum, however a reading of William Blum's "Killing Hope" and Naomi Klein"s "The Shock Doctrine" may add to your knowledge of world affairs not to mention the work of Australian authors Geoffrey Robertson, Helen Caldicott, John Pilger and Rachel Carson. Don't believe everything you find in the western media. When you and all other bloggers have made a study of these works plus many others and balanced this knowledge against the current diet of the western media then the whole level of discussion will hopefully be raised. In the meantime just step down from your artificial tower and consider if you happened "God or Allah" forbid, to be in "poor blighter" shoes.
DEN71

Bazz, Indi, Phillip and others,
Trust you have taken note of the links I provided to Lexi as they may come in handy when some future illegals advocate tries to convince readers on OLO that the illegals enter Aus legally. Lexi has pulled out because the information provided is impecable and she would have to conceed I am correct.

Hopefully she will not bother to post on any other thread to do with the illegals, but of course there are others out there who still peddle the propaganda that illegals have a right to enter.

Also with a bit of luck, it will no longer be an issue after September. We should then have a government that will act to stop the invasion.

Lexi,
why is that you never offer solutions ?

Where on earth do you find a Francis Drake, when you need one?

He has proved he knows what to do with an invasion fleet.

Dear Banjo,

On the contrary, I have pulled out not because
your information is "impeccable" but because
you can't, or don't want to take on information
that is. I therefore see no point in continuing.

The government, the Australian Human Rights
Commission, as well as the Refugee Council, have
stated that asylum seekers who arrive in Australia
by boat are not acting illegally. This is not
propaganda, nor something that I'm making up.

Quoting from the Refugee Council's link,

"In line with our obligations under the UN Refugee
Convention (to which Australia is a signatory),
Australian law permits unauthorised entry into
Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum.
Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply
by arriving on boats without authorisation."

"This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum
seekers who arrive without authorisation as "illegal"
entrants as in fact they have a lawful right to enter
Australia to seek asylum."

"Permitting asylum seekrs to enter a country without
travel documents is similar to allowing ambulance
drivers to exceed the speed limit in an emergency -
the action would be ordinarily considered illegal, but
under the curcumstances it's reasonable to make an
exception."

Lexi,

"...but under the circumstances it's reasonable to make an exception."

Especially if you're wearing a red bikini...

http://www.smh.com.au/national/bikini-girl-who-made-a-splash-20091231-ll1h.html

Dear Poirot,

Yes, a red bikini definitely helped as did
political agendas way back in 1955 when a
PM wanted to win a federal election:

http://moadoph.gov.au/exhibitions/online/petrov/webquest.html

Lexi,

The illegal immigrants essentially are guilty of using irregular or illegal methods of entering the country, which has nothing to do with their rights as refugees. This is exactly is referred to in the department of immigration's website.

As the boat crews that bring them are jailed for 5 years, their method of entry can hardly be called legal. The boat people are illegal immigrants no matter how much the greens and activists try and sanitize the language.

Lexi,
The links I posted are direct from our government, as of 1-5-13, and they clearly state that persons entering Australia without a valid visa are unlawfull. That is unequivocal and direct from the government department responsible for implementing the Immigration Act. The source is impeccable but you still prefer to believe some advocacy group. You are the one that will not accept fact.

So now you are saying that our government is guilty of putting wrong and misleading information out to the public. Have I stumbled across another Gillard lie? Remember this is not from some politician speaking, it is direct from the DIAC.

As you disagree, you post any excerpt from any Act that shows persons have a right to enter without a valid visa and the grounds on which we can detain them if they are legal entrants.

If i recall correctly, you have already stated that asylum seekers were different to people and did not qualify as travelers.

Dear Banjo,

I shall repeat again, The Migration Act 1958 allows
for those seeking asylum to enter Australia with or
without visas. The same situation is covered by the
UN Refugee Convention to which Australia is a
signatory. Google these for yourself. This is important
for several reasons. Firstly - facts do matter and
secondly "illegal" suggests that asylum seekers are
breaking the law, which they are not. Asylum seekers
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.

By definition asylum seekers want authorities to find
them. Illegal immigrants do not. Illegals are people who
are here in breach of their visa conditions. They may
have overstayed their temporary visas, tourist visas,
they might be working more hours than their student visas
permit. It's hard to measure but we know there are at least
50,000 illegals in Australia and a Government Reprot in 2010
suggested it could be as many as 100,000.

More than half of them have called Australia home for five or
more years, 20,000 have lived here for a decade or more and
two in three illegals have evaded immigration authorities for
more than two years. According to stats - more than one in
every 390 people is now an illegal. Illegal immigrants have
been involved in drug cartels, sex slavery, frauds and other
scams.

Three in four illegals come here on a tourist visa or work
visas, one in seven arrive as students and one in 15 disappeared
after being granted temporary residency. Tens of thousand of
foreign students expect to live here once their courses here
finished and so it goes on.

But the biggest misconception is that people who arrive by boat
are illegal immigrants. This is not the case. The following
link is one of many that adheres to that:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-17/cassidy-a-rare-challenge-for-abbott/4203120

I shall probably not be responding to you any further.

lexi,
Good to see that you have tried to search the issue and that you have learned about other things like overstayers, illegal migrants, student visas, backpackers and maybe even 457 visas. But you have not uncovered anything official that states that the entrants in question can enter legally. This is because it does not exist. The DIAC are the officials responsible for the Immigration Act and they state the entrants are unlawfull. But i add, because we are nice people, we undertake not to prosecute those that arrive illegally but then claim our protection.

But if you prefer to believe a left wing commentator from a left wing TV program and the spin from an asylum seekers advocacy group, that is your right.

Meanwhile I will continue to correct those that try to claim the illegals have any right to enter. It is a pity you have been misled.

Dear Banjo,

Sorry, but I'm not the one that's "misled."
You seem to be stuck on the words "unlawful."
Yes, people without visas are considered
as unlawful. But they are not seeking "protection,"
and the Migration Act 1958 or the UN Refugee Convention
does not apply to them.

Asylum seekers and Refugees: what are the facts?

DIAC quite clearly states that the term "illegal" applies only to those without a valid visa (unlawful non-citizens)
WHO ARE NOT SEEKING PROTECTION
such as visa overstayers. It does not apply to asylum seekers or refugees. And, As of 30th June 2011 it was
estimated that there were about 58,400 visa overstayers residing
in Australia.

Cheers.

cont'd ...

And you're right "illegals" don't have
the right of entry into Australia.
But, asylum seekers and Refugees do.
They are not breaking any Australian or
International laws and are not "illegal.

Lexi is right.
It is the rest of you who refuse to see the difference between a normal immigrant, the kind reffered to in banjos links, and an asylum seeker, who is someone fleeing persecution. What is so hard? Or is it that you just cant handle something that contradicts your nasty bigotry?

Mikk>> Lexi is right.
It is the rest of you who refuse to see the difference between a normal immigrant and an asylum seeker, who is someone fleeing persecution.<<

Fleeing fiscal persecution Mikk? They arrive here unwounded, well fed, watered, and without a skerick of personal identification.

Why do they leave home with travel documents and personal identification and then dispose of them for the boat trip…why would one do that?

Why do the illegals travel through other nations that could afford them sanctuary?

How, If they are destitute, do they manage to afford the $20,000 fee to their smuggler mates?

Mikk you don't defend a moral stance; you and others here defend a position driven by personal ego or a blind regurgitation of a political line. Argue about the semantics of "normal immigrant" and asylum seeker all you like, but there is no substance to your stance unless you have taken Gillard’s offer of helping out and housing some of these desperadoes’ in your own homes, Gillard will give you a stipend for it. Have any of you?

Australia takes the highest number of UN designated refugees per capita of all the other nations. Why should these cheats and liars take the place of the poor buggers sitting in camps who are genuinely in need of a new home because theirs has gone, rather than just seeking a better life style?

We can’t take care of our first Australians. Why don’t you decry the lifestyle and absolute bottom of the bird cage social position of our indigenous mates who die twenty years earlier than we Caucasians?

Who amongst the acolytes of social engineering here at OLO has taken Gillard’s offer and actually housed an illegal …or two. …hands up.

Lexi,
It is good to se you have looked at the DIAC website,it is interesting.

Now you are trying to spin it by misquoting what they state.

If you think that Asylum seekers have legal rights of entry then put up the link. You are good at putting up links as you have done it many times on other things.

so come on Lexi put up the link that shows where the DIAC states that asylum seekers have legal rights of entry. You won't put up a link simply because you cannot find one, it does not exist.

Any person who enters Aus without a valid visa is unlawfull i.e. illegal i.e. breaking our law.

Here is the link again. http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/about/background.htm

"Fleeing fiscal persecution Mikk? They arrive here unwounded, well fed, watered, and without a skerick of personal identification."

Then why does the dept of immigration keep assesing them as legitimate refugees? (eventually)

"Any person who enters Aus without a valid visa is unlawfull i.e. illegal i.e. breaking our law." Unless it is for the purposes of seeking asylum. Why is it so hard for you to accept that asylum seekers are given this exception?

Banjo the link you put up proves your argument that asylum seekers are "illegal" is BS. Unlawful is not the same as illegal. No where does it say they will be arrested, charged or placed before a court as they would be if they had commited a criminal act.

Mikk,

You said "Unlawful is not the same as illegal." Actually it is!

Synonyms of illegal from a dictionary.

banned,
prohibited
bootleg, black,
black-market,
contraband,
criminal,
felonious
ill-gotten
embezzled, misappropriated
extrajudicial
extralegal, nonlegal
illegitimate,
illicit,
outlawed,

UNLAWFUL

ineligible
penal,
punishable
under-the-counter

So technically the term illegal immigrant applies, unless Mikk and others get the definition of the word changed.

Actually the term does not apply to asylum seekers or
refugees because asylum seekers do not break any
Australian law simply by arriving on boats without
authorisation. Australian and international law make
these allowances because it is not always safe or
practicable for asylum seekers to obtain travel
documents or travel through authorised channels.

Under Article 14 of the 1948 Universal declaration of
Human Rights everyone has the right to seek asylum.
The Migration Act 1958 allows for those seeking asylum
to enter Australia with or without visas. The same
situation is covered by the UN REfugee Convention
(to which Australia is a signatory).

There is no offence under Australian law that
criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the
seeking of asylum without a valid visa.

However if you still don't believe what the Deptartment
of Immigration states in its own fact sheets their offices
are open Monday to Friday 8.30am to 4.30pm. Their
telephone number is - 131 881. Give them a ring and
ask them yourself if asylum seekers are "illegals".

Cheers.

Actually Lexi,

I have spoken, a year or so ago, to someone who has been in immigration for a while, and his words were that they "preferred not to use the phrase "illegal immigrant" because of the negative connotations, even though it was technically correct.

Mikk,
Actually the term 'Unlawfull entrant' applies to ALL persons arriving without valid documentation. We simply chose not to prosecute the offence if the person applies for asylum, but they are still unlawfull and that is the only reason we can put them in detention.

There are some people that arrive legally, with valid docs, and then apply for asylum, we do not detain them. They are free to go about their business while being assesed. We cannot and do not detain legal arrivals.

As Lexi said, DIAC has all the official information and is easily contactable.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Actually I've also spoken to them and to the
Parliamentary Library and to the Human Rights
Commission, to name just a few. And they all stated
that, "there is no offence under Australian law that
criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the
seeking of asylum without a valid visa." as stated
in the DIAC's fact sheets on asylum seekers.

The term "illegal" may more appropirately apply
to those without a valid visa who are not seeking
protection (such as visa overstayers).

The following link may help:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-17/cassidy-a-rare-challenge-for-abbott/4203120

Dear Banjo,

Here's the link you asked for:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AsylumFacts#_Toc348096466

There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the
act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum
without a valid visa.

Asylum seekers who come by boat are not illegal immigrants.
The Migration Act 1958 allows for entry to Asutralia without a
visa for the purpose of seeking asylum. 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.

cont'd ...

Another link:

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants

Lexi,

Entering the country unlawfully does not mean they have done anything criminal. It just means that they have not followed the letter of the law whilst entering the country.

While this may not be politically "appropriate" it is still technically correct.

Dear Shadow Minister,

How can it be "unlawful" when asylum seekers are
not breaking any Australian law simply by arriving
on boats without authorisation. Australian and
International laws make these allowances for these
people because it is not always safe or practicable
for asylum seekers to obtain documents or travel
through authorised channels.

"Unlawful" applies to people who are not seeking
protection, such as visa overstayers.

This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum
seekers who arrive without authorisation as "unlawful,"
or "Illegal," entrants as in fact they have a lawful
right to enter Australia to seek asylum.

Lexi,

If, by your words, their entry is not authorized, then it by definition is not complying with the letter of the law and is not lawful. Thus it is unlawful or illegal.

The term illegal covers the most heinous crime to the most minor infraction. While you would like the term never to be used, it is technically correct.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Asylum seekers who arrive in Asutralia by boat are not acting illegally.
The UN Refugee Convention
(to which Australia is a signatory) recognises
that refugees have a lawful 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) shall not be treated as illegal if
a person is seeking asylum.

Therefore in line with our obligations under the onvention,
Australian law permits "unauthorised" entry into Australia for
the purpose of seeking asylum. Therefore asylum seekers do
not break any Australian law simply by arriving on boats or
without "authorisation."

This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who
arrive "without authorisation" as "Illegal" entrants
as in fact they DO have a lawful and legal right to enter
Australia to seek asylum.

BTW - asylum seekers want authorities to find them.
Illegtal immigrants do not

If there was any doubt a boat was reported arriving with 184 people on it making the April figure 3319 welfare invaders.

Also 3 boats with over 500 people were detected in one day not sure yet if this includes the above boat.

This from an incompetent Government that Budgeted for 450 arrivals per month.

Hi Den71,

First of all apologies for my tardy response, am extremely busy at the moment so I don’t always have time to drop into OLO--in fact, I wasn’t even going to make the visit this morning.

Can see now why you are going wrong; gleaning your information from sources like Naomi Klein, Helen Caldicott, John Pilger et la! That lot would be enough to send anyone around the (left) bend .Incidentally, the word “balance” or any of its derivatives should not be used in any paragraph which mentions the aforementioned names unless attached to “lack of” or “one eyed”

It’s also quite fitting that you mention Allah in your very next sentence since most who are favorably disposed towards the athreementioned are also favorably disposed towards Allah and his follows – seeing them as brothers-in-arms in their jihad against the great Satan ;) .

Cheers

_______________________________________________________________

Hi Lexi,

Sorry to burst your bubble but you really must read what people have linked you (10,000 times before)


<<The facts are:

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

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

Dear SPQR,

Generally speaking "illegal immigrants" are people
who enter a country without meeting the legal requirements
for entry (without a valid visa, for example).

However under Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, The Migration Act 1958 and the UN Refugee
Convention refugees have a legal 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 clearly stipulates that what would
usually be considered as illegal actions (eg. entering a
country without a visa) shall 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" entrants as
in fact they have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek
asylum.

Permitting asylum seekers to enter a country without travel
documents is similar to allowing ambulance drivers to exceed the
speed limit in an emergency. The action would be ordinarily
considered illegal, but under the circumstances it's
reasonable to make an exception.

You can't be "illegal" or "unlawful" if you're not breaking
any law.

Australian and International laws make allowances for asylum
seekers because as stated in the Department of Immigration
fact sheets, "It isn't always safe or practicable for asylum
seekers to obtain travel documents or to travel through
authorised channels."

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-17/cassidy-a-rare-challenge-for-abbott/4203120

cont'd ...

Dear SPQR,

The letter written by Stewart Foster way back in 2004 certainly
caused controversy at the time. Because it encouraged all the
usual suspects to react. However Media Watch was contacted by
The Australian Press Council - and Mr Foster's interpretation
was of course not accurate. Anyway read it for yourself:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2553917.htm

Lexi my sweet, I have never heard anything on Media Watch, which was in any way accurate.

It, & the science show, must be about the most biased segments on the ABC, & thus ever broadcast anywhere on earth.

SPQR,
However Lexi, and other, try to spin it, the fact remains that Article 31 of the Refugee Convention refers to 'illegal entrants' and that contracting countries, like Aus, agree not to penalise those illegal entrants that subsequently claim our protection.

It seems Lexi has tried the DIAC website and got no joy and now she resorts to things like TV programs to support her argument. I wondered when she would get around to the UN. By the way, the Refugee convention also state there is an obligation for refugees to abide by a countries laws and regulations. Aus laws require all non citizens entering to have a valid visa. While acknowledging they are 'unlawfull entrants', we do not penalise them for their breaking our laws, providing they apply for protection.

I must give Lexi marks for persistance, but she is not the only one misled by illegals advocates.

Yup, Banjo...

It seems we penalise some more than others.

If you arrive by plane and overstay your visa, then apply for asylum, you'll probably be allowed to remain in the community - and sometimes even work.

If you arrive in a clapped-out fishing vessel after a perious journey, you're locked up (if you're really lucky, you'll end up in a scene from Carry On Camping in the lovely and inspiring locale of Manus Island) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-29/tv-still-showing-manus-island-27foul-ground27-sign-28four-co/4657420

Dear Hasbeen,

Media Watch simply corrects misinformation.
That's their job and they do it without
any political bias or agenda.

The letter to the editor that SPQR posted from
the public servant in 2004 came as no surprise.
John Howard won re-election in 2001 partly
because of his tough policy on asylum seekers arriving
by boat. What else could a public servant under Howard
write - the demonising of asylum seekers was the
politics of the day. Years on John Howard is still
framing the asylum seeker debate. Asylum seekers are
still being demonised and the Coalition is still
sending messages of "We will stop the boats."
Thus hoping to win the election.

Dear Banjo,

I've given you the link earlier that you had asked for,
It confirms quite clearly the points I've been making.
Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits states
from imposing penalties on refugees and this article
recognises that refugees have a lawful right to enter a
country for the purposes of seeking asylum.
It lists the number of rights specific to refugees.

No matter what evidence is presented and what's
said I can see that your mind is made up.
There's nothing more to be said. I'll leave you to your
opinion. However, remember facts don't cease to exist
simply because you don't like them or choose to ignore
them.

cont'd ...

Look up under the chapter:

"Are asylum seekers illegal?" page 2.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id&3A%22library/prspub/HGNW6%22

Well that's interesting, Lexi.

Particularly the part that states:

"The UNHCR emphasises that a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution should be viewed as a refugee and not labelled an 'illegal immigrant'..."

and

"Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats without authorisation. Australian and international law make these allowances because it is not always safe and practicable for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents or travel through authorised channels..."

Poirot,
Firstly, it does not matter the mode of travel, if a person arrives with the required docs and applies for asylum he/she will be allowed to be free in the community while the claim is being assesed.

Overstayers do not seem to worry the government as nearly all only stay a short time longer and depart. They are still spending their money while here which adds to our economy. The number remains fairly static because as some leave they are replaced by others who have decided they wish to see more. There are a few that overstay a lot longer and they are illegal migrants and they break the law further as they require false identy and docs in our society, and likely work illegally. These people are also vulnerable to unscrupulous employers and landlords.

The idea of housing illegals offshore is to deter others from coming. I would clearly state that arrivals without docs will never get permanent residence and no chance of family reunion. If that does not stop them coming i would open up Macquarie Island (it does not have to be tropical) and stop assesing them. They will stop coming when they realise they will not get what they want. No legal aid and no computers, just basic accomodation.

Lets face it, if they were legit they would come via the front door, but only about 30% qualify that way and the rest sent home. They flew to Malaysia, a few more bucks would see them in AUS. The young blokes should be home anyway helping to make their country safe instead of our young blokes dieing over there. The illegals are all shonks.

Another 1000 arrived this week, looks like another record for May.

Labor really stuffed this, the fools.

Further proof it is an invasion it is May 4th and in 4 days we have 645 economic invaders come here, remember this incompetent Government BUDGETED for 450 per month.

Some people won't like this but it is about time there were turned around. Also cut of all financial incentives to those here they use the money to bring more people.

Poirot,
You should be mindfull that the doc Lexi posted has a disclaimer as follows:- "The views expressed do not reflect an official position ofthe Parliamentry Library, not do they constitute professional legal opinion".

It is written by a private person whom appears to be employed by some others and not by the Parliament. She makes frequent references to the opinions of the Refugee Council, which is an advocacy group to promote the interests of asylum seekers.

Example of the spin used:-
"The UNHCR emphasises that a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution should be viewed as a refugee and not labelled an 'illegal immigrant'..."

A person is deemed to be a refugee when it is established he has a well-founded fear of persecution and assesed as such. Until then he is deemed an unlawfull non-citizen.

"Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats without authorisation. Australian and international law make these allowances because it is not always safe and practicable for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents or travel through authorised channels..."

Asylum seekers do break Australian law by arriving without authorisation. Our law is that ALL non-citizens arriving must have a valid passport, a valid visa and a completed and signed incoming passenger card. Without such they are deemed an unlawfull non-citizen. If such person applies for our protection, we do not penalise them for the illegal entry.

There are a number of groups that spin the type of stuff to promote the interests of asylum seekers. They do this to try and gain public sympathy. I only believe official DIAC material

Why are so many of these asylum seekers fit,young 30'ish men? why aren't they in their homeland suppoting their families? Why when they get here and are given aircon./food/ shelter etc, demand their'rights' of a country they've never contributed to in any way if their past life experience was so bad? Seems dodgy to me and why should they get dental treatments ahead of a pensioner who's been waiting 3 yrs or more? public housing when there are Australian borns' still on waiting lists?
dunno about anyone else but it boggles my mind,

(Indonesia's military boasts 470,000 active troops, while the Australian Defence Force has just over 80,000 full-time personnel and reservists..) just sayin'

Dear Poirot,

Yes it is interesting. I've been giving those quotes
throughout this thread. And, those same sentences
are given by the DIAC. So Banjo's disclaimers
don't hold much water. But then of course according
to Banjo - we're all wrong - the DIAC, SBS, ABC,
SMH, The Age, Four Corners, The Insiders, The Australian
newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, The Canberra Times,
The Courier Mail, and of course there's also -
The Refugee Convention, 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, The Migration Act 1958, and other Australian
and International Laws.

I watched Four Corners last night. It showed the detention
centres on Nauru and Manus Island. Cameras were sneaked
in because they're off-limits and journalists are not allowed
into these places. The conditions are horrific and reminded
me of the concentration camps of WWII. Hard to believe.
I would recommend that all or our politicians be forced to
visit these places and see for themsleves the real conditions
that people are forced to live in (including children).

See you on another thread.

Lexi - The conditions etc are a palace by comparison to what the UN gives them in Africa and other countries.

It would be nice to see you have the same sympathy for the tens of thousands of Australians who are homeless or are on long medical waiting lists, something these economic invaders don't have to worry about.

THEY ARE FREE TO GO BACK HOME.

Dear Philip,

The language used in these debates has an
enormous impact on those being spoken about
and affects the tone of the public conversation.
Before you make your sweeping statements I suggest
that you do a bit more research, especially what
really goes on in detention centres and the effects
of them on human beings. They cannot go home, and
even basic medical services are not available -
in places like Nauru or Manus Island as last night's
Four Corners program showed.

As for our homeless and where my sympathies lie or
don't. You don't know me.
You should try arguing in a logical manner
as sound reasoning will conquer unreasonable
generalisations every time. You appear to be
arguing on an emotional level - not a mature
intelligent one.

When it comes to discussing this issue it seems
that a reluctance by some people to consider
the term "asylum seekers" or "refugees" instead of
"illegal immigrants" means supporting a
particular political perspective which benefits
from characterising certain human beings as
"Illegal." Clearly this perspective is not an
objective or unbiased one, but one which carries
its own political agenda.

Lexi - Please be so kind as to direct me to some of your comments or posts that express outrage at the lack of compassion and help afforded to Australian citizens.
That will show who is right as per this Quote from you "As for our homeless and where my sympathies lie or don't. You don't know me."

My term for them is most appropriate ECONOMIC INVADERS, even the UN has said a lot are just economic refugees.

As far as I am concerned with there being tens of thousands expected to arrive MOSTLY single men, I would back any action however drastic by any Government to STOP them.
Remember we have thousands of homeless people but not 1 homeless refugees, every boat that arrives means more homeless because they will get housed and money.

Lexi,

When the cost of detaining and processing the illegal immigrants reaches close to what the new NDIS levy raises, then the choice is almost between looking after our disabled or the economic migrants that come in by boat.

LEXI and others

The UNHCR's global budget for this year is $3.7 billion and with that money they are expected to respond to the crises of Syria, Mali, Afghanistan, for 25 million globally.

PLEASE JUSTIFY WHY WE SPEND MORE THAN THAT ON THE ECONOMIC INVADERS WE HAVE HERE. At the expense of our own people.

Dear Philip s.,

All you have to do is go back and
read my posting history. You just may
learn something about me and my feelings
towards my fellow human beings.

It seems to me that you're becoming increasingly
agitated. You're overly focusing on what happens
to poor people in this country versus what happens
on a daily basis in those countries.

I don't grade one life over another, and I believe
it is a dangerous and ugly business deciding to
assign different values to each.

I shan't be responding to you any further.

See you on another discussion.

cont'd ...

Dear Philip s.,

Just to correct you...

I'm not talking about "economic invaders" (your words),
but asylum seekers and refugees.

There is a difference.

Lexi - So you can't provide what has been requested, just say so I believe going back over your posting history if it is anything like what you post now would be like taking a laxative, will give that a miss.

Quote "It seems to me that you're becoming increasingly agitated." interesting assessment but inaccurate as usual.

Quote "I shan't be responding to you any further." I am sure you will not be missed.

You seem to have forgotten to reply about the post directly above yours.

Dear Philip s.,

I understand that you're really angry
and why you say what you do.
I shall overlook this and speak to you later.

Take care.

Lexi - As usual incorrect assessment again, did you by any chance fail a psychology degree. If so give up trying to psychoanalyze people it just adds to your plethora of inaccurate comments.

Here's a bloke who provided aid for thousands of people in peril.

He provided false identity documents and sheltered tens of thousands.

Australia is about to make him an honourary citizen:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-06/holocaust-citizenship/4670932

How many is an invasion?

Did they ask the same question in Hungary?

Perhaps not - because they perceived what a "real" invasion was - and experienced it when it came to pass.

Dear Poirot,

Once again - Thank You.

Poirot & Lexi - 1 simple question for you.

The Jews you use as an example were whole families not just the young men in the family.

The Syrian refugees are mostly women and children or elderly, not young men.

In Africa the refugees are whole families not just young men.

NOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY WE GET MOSTLY BOATS WITH 95% MEN ON THEM?

All the comparisons you bring up are TOTALLY not appropriate to the situation now.