Article VII
Reservations and Declarations
1. At the time of accession, any State may make reservations in respect of article IV of the present Protocol and in respect of the application in accordance with article I of the present Protocol of any provisions of the Convention other than those contained in articles 1, 3, 4, 16 (1) and 33 thereof, provided that in the case of a State Party to the Convention reservations made under this article shall not extend to refugees in respect of whom the Convention applies.
2. Reservations made by States Parties to the Convention in accordance with article 42 thereof shall, unless withdrawn, be applicable in relation to their obligations under the present Protocol.
3. Any State making a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article may at any time withdraw such reservation by a communication to that effect addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
4. Declarations made under article 40, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention by a State Party thereto which accedes to the present Protocol shall be deemed to apply in respect of the present Protocol, unless upon accession a notification to the contrary is addressed by the State Party concerned to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The provisions of article 40, paragraphs 2 and 3, and of article 44, paragraph 3, of the Convention shall be deemed to apply mutatis mutandis to the present Protocol.

in other words, if we don't like a bit we don't have to abide by it. We just have to tell the UN.

Ok Jayb, so let's for the moment assume they are within their rights to come here.

How then do you propose we cater for them?

It must be comedy hour!

Steelredux starts off talking about the DIMA website but half way through somehow jumps to quoting the Refugee Council!


“Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are not acting illegally...http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php"

Then asks (incredulously): "Nowhere on the site did I find anything fitting your description...Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place"

ROFLMAO

Yes, well, it seems you are looking in the wrong place, if you are sourcing from "the Refugee Council of Aust" and expecting to find anything other than partyline praise for the asylum scammmers.


The Refugee Council depends for its (govt) funding on the constant inflow of "refugees" --no "refugees" no Refugee Council.

How about next time you ask a tobacco company executive to verify the health benefits of smoking!

steele,

“Illegal maritime arrivals - More information and relevant links will be added to this webpage as it becomes available.”

If that is all you can find, you had better look again. If they are redoing the website I guess you will have to wait. It was all there when I found it easily quite some time ago and we would have heard about it if the laws had been changed and there is no other reason that we can detain arrivals.

Your posting history show you have only been here a short while, which may explain why you are not aware that all non-citizens require a valid visa to enter.

I have explained it dozens of time and even quoted the parts of the DIAC website. But hey I will no longer do research for those with incorrect information, they can find out for themeselves.

Dear spindoc,

You wrote;

“I’m disgusted that those who sign up to take a bullet for us are treated so badly.”

What emotive clap trap. I don't think the hearty members of our naval forces consider some yet to be substantiated allegations to be maltreatment of themselves of any description. Purely water off a duck's back.

Even it terms of a slander it comes nowhere close to our charming JWH claiming, wilfully and wrongly, that the refugees on the SIEV 4 had thrown their children overboard.

Dear Banjo,

I am happy enough if people want to take the position that the methods asylum seekers use to enter Australia may well be illegal, however the asylum seekers themselves have not done anything that would be deemed unlawful.

I really don't care how many times you may have discussed this on this site, if you were making the assertion this is not so then you were misinformed. Perhaps the following might assist you.

“While it is accurate to describe asylum seekers who enter Australia without a valid visa as "unlawful" or even "illegal entrants", it is not a criminal offence to enter Australia without a visa. Calling someone "unlawful" or an "illegal entrant" is a description of how they entered the country and determines the way authorities process them. It does not mean they have broken any law. Arriving without a visa can only result in criminal sanctions if there is some other offence involved such as falsifying a passport or forging a document.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-24/tony-abbott-incorrect-on-asylum-seekers-breaking-australian-law/5214802

Please let me know if you require any further clarification.

Dear SPQR,

You were not an especially gifted child were you. But even that is no excuse for such clumsy hacking up of my post.

I wrote “"Nowhere on the site did I find anything fitting your description” referring directly to Banjo's DIAC site. I then put the quote;

““Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia 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) should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum. In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws 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 they in fact have a lawful right to enter Australia to seek asylum.”
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/as-boat.php

Yes it was worth putting it in full again as your eyesight doesn't seem to be what it use to be.

It was at this point I asked “Perhaps I am looking in the wrong place.” meaning I had found the answer on the Refugee Council site instead. For you to conflate my two points in the fashion you did either speaks to a confused and dull-witted misreading of my post or a wilful misrepresentation. Perhaps we will leave it up the the readers to decide for themselves.