It’s been a while since I reported on the invasion of Canberra from parts unknown, so it pleases me that another youtube video has been uploaded capturing some phoenix lights from the mothership.
You’ll notice none of our peers have yet picked up on this story, for some reason it remains a RiotACT exclusive.
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
milkman said :
Fortunately Kevin Rudd, beloved leader of our Labor stronghold town, has solved the problem for us. All boat people will now be sent to PNG for processing, and if found to be a genuine refugee resettled in PNG.
Yep, what a total dirtbag.
+1 Bring back the witch!
IrishPete said :
milkman said :
Fortunately Kevin Rudd, beloved leader of our Labor stronghold town, has solved the problem for us. All boat people will now be sent to PNG for processing, and if found to be a genuine refugee resettled in PNG.
Wouldn’t this require legislation? Mr Rudd may have forgotten he doesn’t have a majority in either house. Obviously he will have the support of the Right on this, until the election, when they may change their minds and do something else. So unless he recalls Parliament to pass this legislation, is it just a bit of a thought bubble.
IP
Judging by a lot of negative comment from the MSM already, Rudd’s latest thought bubble will last about another 7 days. He may try to recall Parliament to pass the required legislation thinking he can wedge the opposition if they oppose him but until all the detail is on the table I can’t see Abbott supporting it and I wouldn’t expect he could be justifiably critisized for that.
milkman said :
Fortunately Kevin Rudd, beloved leader of our Labor stronghold town, has solved the problem for us. All boat people will now be sent to PNG for processing, and if found to be a genuine refugee resettled in PNG.
Yep, what a total dirtbag.
It seems that President Rudd has decided that the legalities of it all mean exactly nothing.
I predict some very lengthy and costly High Court challenges.
milkman said :
Fortunately Kevin Rudd, beloved leader of our Labor stronghold town, has solved the problem for us. All boat people will now be sent to PNG for processing, and if found to be a genuine refugee resettled in PNG.
Wouldn’t this require legislation? Mr Rudd may have forgotten he doesn’t have a majority in either house. Obviously he will have the support of the Right on this, until the election, when they may change their minds and do something else. So unless he recalls Parliament to pass this legislation, is it just a bit of a thought bubble.
IP
Fortunately Kevin Rudd, beloved leader of our Labor stronghold town, has solved the problem for us. All boat people will now be sent to PNG for processing, and if found to be a genuine refugee resettled in PNG.
Well all the toing and froing,while entertaining,is now entirely academic given that Ruddie has said that any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as a refugee.
Nothing quite like appealing to the masses with the election looming!
Well, now that PM Rudd has announced that he is not extending Australian residency to anymore boat travelling asylum seekers, all our discussions appear to have been in vain.
The silence is eerie.
Can anyone give me the name of the radio station that this often referred to Alan Jones chappy broadcasts on?
I would like to hear what he has to say about it because there is bugger all reaction on this site.
For your benefit:
MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 228B
Circumstances in which a non-citizen has no lawful right to come to Australia
(1) For the purposes of this Subdivision, a non-citizen has, at a particular time, no lawful right to come to Australia if, at that time:(a) the non-citizen does not hold a visa that is in effect; and
(b) the non-citizen is not covered by an exception referred to in subsection 42(2) or (2A); and
(c) the non-citizen is not permitted by regulations under subsection 42(3) to travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect.
(2) To avoid doubt, a reference in subsection (1) to a non-citizen includes a reference to a non-citizen seeking protection or asylum (however described), whether or not Australia has, or may have, protection obligations in respect of the non-citizen:
(a) under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol; or
(b) for any other reason.
So you can’t start ignoring that as much as you like, it is there in black and white and specifically mentions it applies to those entering Australia with the intention to seek Asylum. Seeking Asylum is not illegal and never has been. Entering Australia without valid travel documents is however. You’re confused on law versus conventions we’re signatories to.
And you are confused about the definition of ‘illegal’. Nowhere does that section say that entering Australia without valid travel documents is illegal.
There are no offence provisions created within that particular section that anyone can breach.
It may be semantics, but the law is very much about semantics.
DrKoresh said :
I’d like to hear what gave dungers and Dilandach’s antecendents the right to come over to this country, presumably on a boat, and then deny that luxury to other people. The answer, of course, is nothing, but I’d still like to hear their justification for it.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion. Playing the man instead of the ball. It’s clear that you’re incapable of having a debate without wanting to delve into personal backgrounds for the purpose of gaining a perceived advantage in what ever point it is you were hoping to make. Let me know when you’re going to talk like an adult and we’ll be good to go but until then perhaps it’s best if the topic remained on aliens of the anal penetrative type.
🙂
Oh FFS, pull your fecking head out and give me a good answer to my question. You should be in Parliament with the way you duck and dodge questions, you’d fit right in with Rudd, Abbott, Scott Morrison and the rest of the scum.
Mysteryman said :
DrKoresh said :
I’d like to hear what gave dungers and Dilandach’s antecendents the right to come over to this country, presumably on a boat, and then deny that luxury to other people. The answer, of course, is nothing, but I’d still like to hear their justification for it.
Presumably their ancestors arrived before the Migration Act 1958.
Don’t presume or take anything for granted when you try to debate the mad doctor.
tuco said :
I’d be hard to identify my political leanings.
Waiting for the election? With an L.
Voted greens last time actually.
That’s nice. Not as exciting as you indicated previously, but no doubt it felt good.
DrKoresh said :
I’d like to hear what gave dungers and Dilandach’s antecendents the right to come over to this country, presumably on a boat, and then deny that luxury to other people. The answer, of course, is nothing, but I’d still like to hear their justification for it.
My antecedants on both sides of my family certainly came on ships (I don’t think air travel was available in the 1800s but you could of course dispute that too). They were actually convicts and I am told by descending relatives that they wouldn’t wish that “luxury” on anybody. Many perished on the long voyages while being held below deck. They used to teach us in detail about this at school 50 years ago but I guess these days children are only taught about the “British Invaders”.
After serving their sentences they worked hard (no social security then you know) to conrtibute something to their new country, raise a family etc. That was their justification.
I could give you a lot more detail but you have already made your closed mind up that there is “nothing”.
Please now crawl back under your rock.
DrKoresh said :
I’d like to hear what gave dungers and Dilandach’s antecendents the right to come over to this country, presumably on a boat, and then deny that luxury to other people. The answer, of course, is nothing, but I’d still like to hear their justification for it.
Presumably their ancestors arrived before the Migration Act 1958.
jakey106 said :
2 years ago my house mates and i saw something similar we recorded it and put it up on youtube here is the video that i took. Sorry about how shaky the camera is we didn’t have a tripod and zooming in was a bit of a challenge.
This isn’t exactly the same as the video in the OP and I think I can explain what you were seeing. While bushwalking recently, I found a small electronic device (35mm x 15mm) housed in a clear plastic case. It had 3 x button batteries, a tiny circuitboard and an LED. There was a simple sliding switch on one side. These devices are harmless and are probably available on the net (I haven’t checked).
It was attached to the remnants of a balloon.
I took it home and snapped open the case to replace the spent batteries and then turned it on. It immediately emitted random patterns of red, blue and possibly other colours in high light intensity.
On a clear night, the lights from this device would be visible for miles and if attached to a balloon it would go wherever the wind was blowing in different directions and speeds depending on the stratas.
If the lights appeared static this would mean the balloon would be tethered.
Your mystery lights have been solved.
I will now prepare to face cyber interrogation and abuse from the usual suspects.
I’d like to hear what gave dungers and Dilandach’s antecendents the right to come over to this country, presumably on a boat, and then deny that luxury to other people. The answer, of course, is nothing, but I’d still like to hear their justification for it.
Jim Jones said :
Drawing comparison to Jewish refugees has nothing to do with Godwin’s law. I suggest you brush up on your internet lore (as well as your history and knowledge of Australian law).
.
It’s what I thought when I read it. You are sailing very close to the wind.
However, it is acceptable to make comparisons with Nazism (and related issues) when it’s not hyperbolic (my paraphrasing of the “rules”).
IP
I’d be hard to identify my political leanings.
Waiting for the election? With an L.
IrishPete said :
54-11 said :
For those that actually want some “facts” or at least informed comment (whether you are for or against), here are a few starting points:
Amazing for news.com to have such a story. It isn’t reflected in their print newspapers.
IP
I particularly like
Myth 4: They’re illegal, queue jumping undesirables
REALITY: Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they immigrants. 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. 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. Australia has a proud history of boat people and other asylum seekers becoming good citizens.
That is UN conventions, not Australian Law. Perhaps you should become more acquainted with immigration laws. Section 14 of the migration act, any non-citizen who is in the migration zone and is not a lawful non-citizen is an unlawful non-citizen.
Then you have 228B of the migration act which lays out the specifics. It is not lawful to arrive in australia without a valid visa. This also covers persons under the refugees convention and the refugees protocol.
Asylum seekers are not ‘migrants’. You can continue to ignore the 1951 convention all you like, but Australia is a signatory. Australia’s migration law explicitly takes the convention into account.
Completely different situations and an obvious bait to start screaming “Godwin’s Law!” and attempt to take a high moral position. Not today my naive friend.
You’re the one stating explicitly that asylum seekers who pay for transit aren’t legitimate refugees. The facts – as outlined in the source I’ve given you – reveal this to be a complete falsehood.
Drawing comparison to Jewish refugees has nothing to do with Godwin’s law. I suggest you brush up on your internet lore (as well as your history and knowledge of Australian law).
There is not a queue per se but there are resources. Resources expended on dealing with and processing refugees arriving illegally. Resources that would otherwise be used fulfilling our UN refugee obligations at refugee camps.
So, there’s no queue, but you demand that people get in the queue anyway?
Just because you say so makes it so? Where’s your source for this that isn’t from a refugee advocacy group. Lets see any impartial source for that.
Again – Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Asylum Trends 2011-2012 Annual Publication, p31
Completely different things. Refugees are not coming through on 457 visas.
No, economic immigration (of the sort you are accusing asylum seekers of undertaking, despite the evidence to the contrary) occurs through legitimate 457 visas.
2 years ago my house mates and i saw something similar we recorded it and put it up on youtube here is the video that i took. Sorry about how shaky the camera is we didn’t have a tripod and zooming in was a bit of a challenge.
IrishPete said :
54-11 said :
For those that actually want some “facts” or at least informed comment (whether you are for or against), here are a few starting points:
Amazing for news.com to have such a story. It isn’t reflected in their print newspapers.
IP
Yes, isn’t it? Shows how much the mainstream media have soaked up all the “illegal” asylum seeker crap, and how unthinking people seem to demand more of the same.
The reality is much more complex than both sides seem to realise.
54-11 said :
For those that actually want some “facts” or at least informed comment (whether you are for or against), here are a few starting points:
Amazing for news.com to have such a story. It isn’t reflected in their print newspapers.
IP
For those that actually want some “facts” or at least informed comment (whether you are for or against), here are a few starting points:
http://www.politifact.com.au/subjects/asylum-seekers/
And if you want to see what evidence is considered by the Refugee Review Tribunal, have a look at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/RRTA/. Just read through a few of the decisions (these are just a sample) and then maybe some of you may then be in a position of being able to comment with some semblance of knowledge. Some claims are patently absurd, accompanied by a web of lies; others can be heart-breaking to read. As always, there are not just two sides to this – it is a highly complex area of public policy. Which is why Abbott’s 3-word slogans appeal to those who are incapable of independent thinking. And normally I tend toward the bleeding-heart side of things, but my reading and personal knowledge shows it’s not as simple as many of you think.
My declaration of interest – my partner was here on a protection visa and went through the RRT process.
There is not much in the way of sources currently on either side.
Heres’s some sources:
Asylum seekers arriving by boat are more likely to be recognised as refugees than those who have arrived by air. In 2011-2012, 4766 out of 5240 (90.9%) final decisions regarding protection visas for asylum seekers who arrived by boat were to grant the visas. In comparison, 44% of asylum seekers who arrived by plane were found to be genuine refugees and granted protection visas.
Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Asylum Trends 2011-2012 Annual Publication, p31
There was a ‘no advantage’ placed on people that had illegally entered Australia …
So essentially there has been an advantage granted to those who lie and cheat their way through the system as opposed to those who go through the correct processes and follow the rules.
The only effect of the ‘no advantage’ test thus far has been to halt processing on arrivals – the Department of Immigration have no idea what to do for the ‘no advantage’ thing, beyond … doing nothing and leaving people waiting.
Again – it’s not ‘illegal entry’ if you’re seeking asylum. That is absolutely crystal clear not only from the 1951 convention, but also (in line with obligations under the convention) Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. It’s not lieing or cheating.
The poor need the help, actual refugees. Not those that open their wallet to get what they want.
You can’t be an asylum seeker if you have any money? So, only people with no money are persecuted for religious, political or other reasons? You might want to do some research on the Jews fleeing Europe on that one.
There are no queue’s. As Burnside said (in this article: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts-20130718-2q5rv.html) “As for “queue-jumping”, leave aside that there is no queue where boat people come from, the etiquette of the checkout at Coles is not how it works when you are running for your life.”
Again – over 90% of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees. This whole ‘economic immigration via boats’ is a myth propagated politicians on by both sides of politics to pander to people’s worst instincts.
Economic immigration occurs via 457 visas and the business community just love it.
As for the ridiculous documentation thing.
If your government is murdering people like you just for being like you are you seriously going to trot down to a government office and give them your identity details and home address?
Seriously?
Methinks you’d be jumping on the first boat out of there.
dungfungus said :
DrKoresh said :
dungfungus said :
Actually, without any passports or ID they are conspiring to defraud our sovereignty and to me that means they are illegals.
That is a no-brainer.Thank Christ you’re not an arbiter of justice then, dungfungus.
Why, have you something that you have been hiding?
I just mean that your opinion has no bearing on the legality of asylum seekers, kind of like my opinion that you’re a gutless xenophobe has no bearing on the legality of smacking you upside the head. Let’s both be thankful for that.
DrKoresh said :
dungfungus said :
Actually, without any passports or ID they are conspiring to defraud our sovereignty and to me that means they are illegals.
That is a no-brainer.Thank Christ you’re not an arbiter of justice then, dungfungus.
Why, have you something that you have been hiding?
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
Still waiting for some sources here, bigots. Please don’t comment again unless you have actual facts.
Hey. You. Get off of my internet. (Source: Jagger, M. 1965)
dungfungus said :
Actually, without any passports or ID they are conspiring to defraud our sovereignty and to me that means they are illegals.
That is a no-brainer.
‘Defraud our sovereignty’? What? I’m not sure what that means, or if it’s something one can actually do.
Not all of the people who seek asylum have or ever had passports or ID.
Dungfungus. You have zero brain(sick burn bro)
Still waiting for some sources here, bigots. Please don’t comment again unless you have actual facts.
Miz, you never cease to amaze me that you have no heart and you seem to think the only person in this world that is allowed assistance from the government is your self. So gross.
dungfungus said :
Actually, without any passports or ID they are conspiring to defraud our sovereignty and to me that means they are illegals.
That is a no-brainer.
Thank Christ you’re not an arbiter of justice then, dungfungus.
dungfungus said :
miz said :
bigfeet, actually it IS unlawful for a person to enter a country (eg Australia) without the proper documentation authorising that entry. THEN, if the person decides to claim asylum, authorisation is granted for the person to remain in Australia on a temporary basis until the person’s case is looked at and a decision is made.
This is no different from the idea of strangers entering your house without your permission or without have a lawful reason for being there. But maybe you would be personally delighted to have a couple of uninvited caravans-full of ‘visitors’ rock up and live on your front lawn?
Prepared to be marked ZERO for this correct but unpopular opinion.
Lets ask again – what law is being broken?
I’d suggest you have a read of the 1951 Refugee Convention: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49da0e466.html – particularly articles 31-33.
poetix said :
miz said :
bigfeet, actually it IS unlawful for a person to enter a country (eg Australia) without the proper documentation authorising that entry. THEN, if the person decides to claim asylum, authorisation is granted for the person to remain in Australia on a temporary basis until the person’s case is looked at and a decision is made.
This is no different from the idea of strangers entering your house without your permission or without have a lawful reason for being there. But maybe you would be personally delighted to have a couple of uninvited caravans-full of ‘visitors’ rock up and live on your front lawn?
Compassionate as usual. And the analogy is just stupid.
That is code for ZERO.
Interesting article here http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jul/02/australia-asylum-seekers
Apparently boat arrivals have now overtaken arrivals by air.
But also interesting is that the third highest country from which people are seeking Asylum is China. And the fourth highest is India. (These figures are from 2011-12 but it’s probably too early to expect 2012-13 figures.)
It has always bothered me that we continue to give Aid and have normal diplomatic relations with countries who our Immigration Dept say are places people are fleeing from. Perhaps we should cut the Aid budgets to those countries in proportion to the amount of money spend processing and resettling people from those countries.
And obviously our defence budget is responsible for the number of Aghani and Iraqi refugees. The disconnect between our defence, foreign (including aid) and immigration policies is stark, and daft.
As for dealing with asylum seekers – there can be NO justification for the immoral way in which Australia treats people arriving on our shores seeking refugee status. Mandatory indefinite detention in awful conditions is something we don’t even do to violent criminals. Maybe if we set up processing centres in Indonesia that people could apply through, we could take all our asylum seekers to those centres for processing – i.e. create the queue that currently doesn’t exist.
IP
miz said :
bigfeet, actually it IS unlawful for a person to enter a country (eg Australia) without the proper documentation authorising that entry. THEN, if the person decides to claim asylum, authorisation is granted for the person to remain in Australia on a temporary basis until the person’s case is looked at and a decision is made.
This is no different from the idea of strangers entering your house without your permission or without have a lawful reason for being there. But maybe you would be personally delighted to have a couple of uninvited caravans-full of ‘visitors’ rock up and live on your front lawn?
Compassionate as usual. And the analogy is just stupid.
miz said :
bigfeet, actually it IS unlawful for a person to enter a country (eg Australia) without the proper documentation authorising that entry. THEN, if the person decides to claim asylum, authorisation is granted for the person to remain in Australia on a temporary basis until the person’s case is looked at and a decision is made.
This is no different from the idea of strangers entering your house without your permission or without have a lawful reason for being there. But maybe you would be personally delighted to have a couple of uninvited caravans-full of ‘visitors’ rock up and live on your front lawn?
Prepared to be marked ZERO for this correct but unpopular opinion.
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
dungfungus said :
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
dungfungus said :
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
Ignorant Allan jones fanboi lack wits.
Legally, there is no such thing as a illegal asylum seeker. You tiny brained penises need to educate yourselves, but to do that you need to grow a brain.
Turn off the radio and do some actual research.
I am assuming you are referring to me so firstly, let me state without any misunderstanding that I don’t listen to Alan Jones on the radio. The only radio I listen to is ABC National (I used too listen to 666 but the talking magpies on early morning have become simply unbearable with their inane anecdotes).
When I was studying law, conspiracy to defraud was described as something like one person agreeing with another person or persons that a course of conduct should be pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions.
One person = people smuggler
Other persons = asylum seekers
Course of conduct = destroy passports and identity papers, sink boat and call for help, endagering lives of rescuers
Intentions = gain illegal entry into Australia through misrepresentationMy case rests.
Your case is weak with zero fact. You provide zero sources and make outlandish claims that you clearly know zero about.
Sounds like I won that one.
All you won was a badge that marks you as a ignorant fool who does not understand the concept of facts and instead spouts of bigoted rubbish with zero sources.
All are equal before the law so there goes your bigot smear.
PS, Zero seems to be your favourite adjective. Is there a personal story you wish to relate about why this is?
Dilandach I don’t know what to say. You can make as many clever arguments as you like and all your points are good ones.
I still feel that it’s ok to take care of people who arrive here while feeling sorry for the ones left behind.
Also please note that often the country “next door” is overwhelmed by an influx of refugees. They establish temporary homes but just can’t afford to take care of everyone. They ask other countries to help but the rich countries far away from the trouble take in so few people that there’s a queue up to 20 years long. 20 long years during which they can’t work, make plans or get their children (who will leave as adults) properly educated.
I’d buy, bribe or cheat my way around it to keep my family safe. Do you have kids?
bigfeet, actually it IS unlawful for a person to enter a country (eg Australia) without the proper documentation authorising that entry. THEN, if the person decides to claim asylum, authorisation is granted for the person to remain in Australia on a temporary basis until the person’s case is looked at and a decision is made.
This is no different from the idea of strangers entering your house without your permission or without have a lawful reason for being there. But maybe you would be personally delighted to have a couple of uninvited caravans-full of ‘visitors’ rock up and live on your front lawn?
dungfungus said :
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
dungfungus said :
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
Ignorant Allan jones fanboi lack wits.
Legally, there is no such thing as a illegal asylum seeker. You tiny brained penises need to educate yourselves, but to do that you need to grow a brain.
Turn off the radio and do some actual research.
I am assuming you are referring to me so firstly, let me state without any misunderstanding that I don’t listen to Alan Jones on the radio. The only radio I listen to is ABC National (I used too listen to 666 but the talking magpies on early morning have become simply unbearable with their inane anecdotes).
When I was studying law, conspiracy to defraud was described as something like one person agreeing with another person or persons that a course of conduct should be pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions.
One person = people smuggler
Other persons = asylum seekers
Course of conduct = destroy passports and identity papers, sink boat and call for help, endagering lives of rescuers
Intentions = gain illegal entry into Australia through misrepresentationMy case rests.
Your case is weak with zero fact. You provide zero sources and make outlandish claims that you clearly know zero about.
Sounds like I won that one.
All you won was a badge that marks you as a ignorant fool who does not understand the concept of facts and instead spouts of bigoted rubbish with zero sources.
dungfungus said :
I am assuming you are referring to me so firstly, let me state without any misunderstanding that I don’t listen to Alan Jones on the radio. The only radio I listen to is ABC National (I used too listen to 666 but the talking magpies on early morning have become simply unbearable with their inane anecdotes).
When I was studying law, conspiracy to defraud was described as something like one person agreeing with another person or persons that a course of conduct should be pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions.
One person = people smuggler
Other persons = asylum seekers
Course of conduct = destroy passports and identity papers, sink boat and call for help, endagering lives of rescuers
Intentions = gain illegal entry into Australia through misrepresentationMy case rests.
Again, you throw around the word ‘illegal’ without actually specifying which piece of legislation, section or specific offence they are breaking.
I will spell it out for you again:
It is NOT illegal for any person to enter Australia by ANY means whatsoever for the purposes of requesting asylum.
It’s not a hard concept to grasp.
Got it?
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
dungfungus said :
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
Ignorant Allan jones fanboi lack wits.
Legally, there is no such thing as a illegal asylum seeker. You tiny brained penises need to educate yourselves, but to do that you need to grow a brain.
Turn off the radio and do some actual research.
I am assuming you are referring to me so firstly, let me state without any misunderstanding that I don’t listen to Alan Jones on the radio. The only radio I listen to is ABC National (I used too listen to 666 but the talking magpies on early morning have become simply unbearable with their inane anecdotes).
When I was studying law, conspiracy to defraud was described as something like one person agreeing with another person or persons that a course of conduct should be pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions.
One person = people smuggler
Other persons = asylum seekers
Course of conduct = destroy passports and identity papers, sink boat and call for help, endagering lives of rescuers
Intentions = gain illegal entry into Australia through misrepresentationMy case rests.
Your case is weak with zero fact. You provide zero sources and make outlandish claims that you clearly know zero about.
Sounds like I won that one.
dungfungus said :
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
Ignorant Allan jones fanboi lack wits.
Legally, there is no such thing as a illegal asylum seeker. You tiny brained penises need to educate yourselves, but to do that you need to grow a brain.
Turn off the radio and do some actual research.
I am assuming you are referring to me so firstly, let me state without any misunderstanding that I don’t listen to Alan Jones on the radio. The only radio I listen to is ABC National (I used too listen to 666 but the talking magpies on early morning have become simply unbearable with their inane anecdotes).
When I was studying law, conspiracy to defraud was described as something like one person agreeing with another person or persons that a course of conduct should be pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions.
One person = people smuggler
Other persons = asylum seekers
Course of conduct = destroy passports and identity papers, sink boat and call for help, endagering lives of rescuers
Intentions = gain illegal entry into Australia through misrepresentationMy case rests.
Your case is weak with zero fact. You provide zero sources and make outlandish claims that you clearly know zero about.
Jim Jones said :
Anybody got any evidence that asylum seekers aren’t legit refugees?
All the figures that I’ve seen (from Department of Immigration) indicate that over 90% of people who make dangerous boat journeys towards Australia are people fleeing persecution in need of a protection visa.
Do you believe in the tooth fairy as well?
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :
Ignorant Allan jones fanboi lack wits.
Legally, there is no such thing as a illegal asylum seeker. You tiny brained penises need to educate yourselves, but to do that you need to grow a brain.
Turn off the radio and do some actual research.
I am assuming you are referring to me so firstly, let me state without any misunderstanding that I don’t listen to Alan Jones on the radio. The only radio I listen to is ABC National (I used too listen to 666 but the talking magpies on early morning have become simply unbearable with their inane anecdotes).
When I was studying law, conspiracy to defraud was described as something like one person agreeing with another person or persons that a course of conduct should be pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions.
One person = people smuggler
Other persons = asylum seekers
Course of conduct = destroy passports and identity papers, sink boat and call for help, endagering lives of rescuers
Intentions = gain illegal entry into Australia through misrepresentation
My case rests.
thebrownstreak69 said :
Jim Jones said :
Anybody got any evidence that asylum seekers aren’t legit refugees?
All the figures that I’ve seen (from Department of Immigration) indicate that over 90% of people who make dangerous boat journeys towards Australia are people fleeing persecution in need of a protection visa.
The details are classified, and not publicly available.
So … that’s a ‘no’ then, is it?
Jim Jones said :
Anybody got any evidence that asylum seekers aren’t legit refugees?
All the figures that I’ve seen (from Department of Immigration) indicate that over 90% of people who make dangerous boat journeys towards Australia are people fleeing persecution in need of a protection visa.
The details are classified, and not publicly available.
Anybody got any evidence that asylum seekers aren’t legit refugees?
All the figures that I’ve seen (from Department of Immigration) indicate that over 90% of people who make dangerous boat journeys towards Australia are people fleeing persecution in need of a protection visa.
But I do have to ask, are these people getting a boat directly from their country of origin and heading towards Australia? Or are they passing through multiple politically stable countries on their way? Why would they ignore countries that are obviously not warzones or actively slaughtering their citizens and keep their eye on the prize that is settlement in Australia? Quite simple, if they were fleeing for their lives you would think that the first stable country they came to would be enough but that isn’t the primary interest. Its in raising their standard of living together with moving to a country that has better economic prospects for them personally.
If I could afford it, I’d probably try to do both. I’d be leaving behind my family, my friends, fleeing from a war, persecution or famine that threatened my family. I’d be destitute and penniless, looking at a life of poverty and begging or maybe getting into drugs/prostitution unless I was in a place where I could reliably bootstrap myself and my family up from nothing.
I can’t really blame anyone who tries to do exactly what I would do in the situation.
Actually, I’d have to be really desperate to get to the “leaky fishing boat” stage. I like boats but I’m not big on letting the drunk fishermen drive them, particularly if I was trying to get my kids to safety. So that only gives me more sympathy.
dungfungus said :
Actually, without any passports or ID they are conspiring to defraud our sovereignty and to me that means they are illegals.
That is a no-brainer.
So what actual piece of legislation do you think asylum seekers are breaking? And if their action by seeking asylum are illegal then why has not a single asylum seeker been charged?
Here’s a hint….entering Australia by ANY means to request asylum is not illegal.
Ignorant Allan jones fanboi lack wits.
Legally, there is no such thing as a illegal asylum seeker. You tiny brained penises need to educate yourselves, but to do that you need to grow a brain.
Turn off the radio and do some actual research.
Erg0 said :
Bloody aliens, driving around in clear conditions with their fog lights on.
I saw a white UFO doing burn outs at Charny shops once….
Ah that be no UFO it be a white commodore..
What a waste of bandwidth. Without context it’s as pointless as a Tony Abbott climate comment.
DrKoresh said :
Roundhead89 said :
When I saw the heading I thought you were referring to illegal asylum seekers. At least this type of alien isn’t costing us all heaps of money and causing massive social problems.
They’re not illegal asylum seekers, have you actually got a brain? Or is that roundhead of yours just full of s***?
Actually, without any passports or ID they are conspiring to defraud our sovereignty and to me that means they are illegals.
That is a no-brainer.
Roundhead89 said :
When I saw the heading I thought you were referring to illegal asylum seekers. At least this type of alien isn’t costing us all heaps of money and causing massive social problems.
They’re not illegal asylum seekers, have you actually got a brain? Or is that roundhead of yours just full of s***?
When I saw the heading I thought you were referring to illegal asylum seekers. At least this type of alien isn’t costing us all heaps of money and causing massive social problems.
Erg0 said :
Bloody aliens, driving around in clear conditions with their fog lights on.
And their turn signal on.
Bloody aliens, driving around in clear conditions with their fog lights on.
Ok: we’ve solved the problem of inter-stellar travel now we can start work on a replacement for navigation lights to avoid collisions.
Do the libs really want a public battle over being expected to turn up to the office? I thought they… View
6% of Canberra's households are public housing. In the Oaks Estate it's 9%. Public housing tenants… View
I had to visit Oaks Estate for a maintenance job and I liked what I saw, it looked like a nice place… View
Give us a break, this is just the latest masterplan for Oaks Estate, after a long list of previous… View
Surely if it is being classed as a motel then the individual "apartments" cannot be sold or titled… View
From what I've read of this I don't like it. I have a fondness for Gold Creek and liked the rural… View
Well this sounds simple enough. If people are staying there longer then a month, then its illegal… View
Penfold's problem is that he is trying to stand in the path of myriad improvements happening all… View
Goldphish, I do not spend my day making up priorities about light switches, or water taps, or other… View
Mark Sheppard Bathrooms and RenovationsCanberra’s leading renovator, specialising in residential renovation services.
Clarity Home LoansA passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.
Huglo SolarYour energy mate, providing straight forward solar and battery advice that saves you money, and reduces the impact on the environment.
Asset Construction HireLocally run construction hire company, providing clients with superior equipment.
DDCS LawyersCanberra’s leading relationship lawyers, specialising in family law, including divorce, as well as wills and estate planning.
William Cole FuneralsWe offer everything you need to celebrate and farewell your loved one.
Canberra Southern Cross ClubWe're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.
Velocity ConveyancingEstablished in 1968, we are professional solicitors focusing on conveyancing.
Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
