Banjo its a shame you highlighted those two boats.
One Minister resigned because he lied about it.
And both boats are well known rarely argued about, Liberal messes.
You know I support you in this issue.
But weaken your own case by just like Abbott behaving as if the Liberals are still in opposition.
History and polls will note Tony is making a bit of a mess here and in other issues.
However no mud will stick to him over burns no Australian inflicted.

Foxy,
Since when was unlawful and illegal not the same meaning. My dictionary says they are. To do something unlawful or illegal is exactly the same.

You are trying to argue that shop lifting is not stealing or thieving. It is all the same. A shoplifter is a thief.

However, here on OLO, we have seen those trying to claim criticism of a persons conduct, criticism of a religion, or criticism of a culture is racism.

Some do try to change the meaning of words to suit their argument.

Foxy: people are held in detention while their claims for asylum are being assessed.

Yes, & in far better conditions than they would be if they were in a UN Refugee Camp. They are expecting Hilton accommodation because that what they think the West is like. (Days of our Lives)

Foxy: We are signatories to the Refugee Convention and are obligated to assess all asylum applications.

Foxy, please read the Convention & the Handbook. We are not obliged to do anything. It is a document that says basically, "Look here's how we would like you to treat refugees. but if there are parts you don't like then you don't have to abide by those parts.

Foxy: People may well be "unlawful" by arriving here without visas.

Well..., yes it is if they don't have a Visa. Arrive by plane & you get sent straight back.

Read the Maritime Law I posted earlier as well. It explains it better there.

Foxy: but they are not "illegal" because they are not breaking any of our laws.

It is really, Read the Immigration Act. Also according to the UNCHR Convention they cease to be refugees when they leave a place of safety after they have crossed their boarder. Read Article 31.

steelie: whether they hold valid travel or identity documents.

Considering they would have had to have Travel Documents & Passports to get to Indonesia. When they reach Australia they don't have any. Why not? It takes Australia time & money to then find out just who they are. This is a stalling tactic which is costing the Australian Taxpayer lost infrastructure, etc.

Steelie: the Refugee Council Website is a load of Biases Codswollop.

...if they are legal migrants or UNHCR sponsored refugees we welcome them....if they jump the fence without documentation what reason is there to want them....we don't know anything about them.

In the last month no illegal immigrant has arrived in Australia by boat, nor been taken into Australian immigration authority for transfer to Manus Island or Nauru. Gillard/Rudd had budgeted for 1200.....They also budgeted nearly $3 BILLION for the 2014 arrivals....well that’s three billion we won’t have to borrow this year.

Dear Banjo,

The constant reference to illegality colours public
opinion towards these boat passengers.

The UN Refugee Convention (to which Australia is a signatory)
recognises that people have a right to enter a country for
the purpose 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, such as entering a country without a
visa, should 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, as they in fact
have a right to enter Australia to seek asylum

The Council argues that Australian law permits unauthorised
entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum.
Asylum seekers therefore do not break any Australian laws
simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation.

The Australian Press Council notes that if a claim for asylum
is rejected the applicant can be deported but not
posecuted because "they have not committed an offence."

Refugees therefore can't be called illegal because the
presumption has to be that they could be legitimate refugees,

I'm not using words to suit some sort of "agenda" as you imply.
That argument of yours is not acceptable. You can Google
this information for yourself - it's freely available on
the web.

Dear banjo,

You wrote;

“Steele, You know it does not really matter any more. The illegals have broken our laws and that is why we can detain them. We do not detain those who enter lawfully.”

This is an opinion site and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. I have given the facts and it has not shifted your opinion and that is okay too. Nor does it really matter how many times you choose to repeat it it will still remain your opinion.

That it does not hold up to factual scrutiny also does not disqualify it from being put and you can do so until you are blue in the face. Nothing changes the fact that it is factually incorrect but as you say “it does not really matter any more”.