Navy intercepts seventh boat of asylum-seekers in two months

[southee]

Why is Andrew Bolt condemned by certain people? Is it because he dares to tell the truth?

Agree, really like his articles....dont think people like reading the truth slapped in there faces....sweep it under the carpet!!!

[mick]

Why is Andrew Bolt condemned by certain people? Is it because he dares to tell the truth?

Agree, really like his articles....dont think people like reading the truth slapped in there faces....sweep it under the carpet!!!

I think Andrew Bolt talks a lot of sense as well. I really started to like Rudd a lot more when he talked about "illegal immigrants" because that's what they are until their status is verified.

[Lazarus]

Why is Andrew Bolt condemned by certain people? Is it because he dares to tell the truth?

Agree, really like his articles....dont think people like reading the truth slapped in there faces....sweep it under the carpet!!!

I think Andrew Bolt talks a lot of sense as well. I really started to like Rudd a lot more when he talked about "illegal immigrants" because that's what they are until their status is verified.

Ha ha ha, guilty until proven innocent.

[Psyber]

I think Andrew Bolt talks a lot of sense as well. I really started to like Rudd a lot more when he talked about "illegal immigrants" because that's what they are until their status is verified.

Ha ha ha, guilty until proven innocent.

Anyone who attempts to enter any country without approval is by definition acting improperly if not as an "illegal immigrant", or is an invader.
The act of arrival, without papers approving it, is proof itself.

They may also be genuine asylum seekers, but that has to be assessed and determined by due process, and there is a proper mechanism for it that these people are trying to bypass either by stealth or emotional blackmail.
I think the government should state quite clearly that those people who try to bypass the proper channels, and thus cheat those people in similar situations who are going through the proper procedure of their place in the queue, will be the last assessed for approved immigration.

EDIT: to tidy up my sloppy use of language.

[redandblack]

There's some ground there for further discussion, Psyber.

I don't know that you are at all correct in your assertions about 'by definition'.

When there's time, I'll look up about people seeking refugee status.

There have been several very interesting articles recently about this and they tend to strongly disprove the ''queue jumpers'' type of argument.

[Lazarus]

Psyber, by definition your definition of illegal is wrong.

If they are genuine Asylum Seekers then their method of entry into the country is legal. You can't say they are illegal then by method of approving their Asylum Seeker status they become legal. That is a nonsense.

In reference to queue jumping, you are wrong too. Are there "queues" in the form of refugee camps in every country where boat people come from? Are these camps accessible to everyone? Are the conditions in those camps such that we should expect people to stay there? Do the "queue" jumpers even know about the queue?

I expect a decent answer to these questions before any more queue jumper allegations are levelled. Furthermore if anyone uses the term "illegal immigrant" again in an incorrect context they are incapable of understanding the most basic legal concepts.

[smac]

Unlike those who fail to understand what the term "banned" means? They, of course, are far more intelligent.

[mick]

These niceties and legal argument are all very well but I predict "The Indonesian solution" will replace Howard's Pacific solution.

[Psyber]

I'm not too fussed about the definition in current Law, local or International, R&B.
As Shakespeare pointed out, there can be laws "more honoured in the breach than the employment".
The framing of Law is influenced by the fashion of politically correctness dominant among politicians and parties at the time the it is framed.
It can be motivated by social and economic engineering intentions, as much as, or more than, by supporting natural justice, then "spun" as just.
So, being Law is not the same as being right - it is nearer to being the same as power.

A commonsense definition dictates that someone who enters your home without consent is acting wrongly.
It can be reasonably held that entering your country without consent as the same.*
There are reasonable grounds in a social group to override that if there is evidence of exceptional circumstances established by a formal process first.
But there are not natural grounds for a preemptive assumption of exceptional circumstances without due consideration of evidence.**

* Yes, I agree our aborigines could say that about our arrival, as could those here before them about theirs.
Historically, lands and countries have always been held or lost by force, and in the end that is still the ultimate solution.
[Though one most of us would prefer to avoid, in these times when the nature of "force" is potentially so potent.]

** Yes, I had objections to the anti-terrorist legislation under the previous federal government too.

[Lazarus]

I am glad you haven't objected to my queue jumper points.

If you are not fussed about definitions why did you say "by definition an illegal immigrant or an invader"?

I am also glad you have moved the discussion away from law and towards what is morally right. I think we can all agree that we should act according to what is the right thing to, not merely act in accordance with current law.

Drawing parallels between trespassing in someone's home and entering a country without consent is a bit rich. One is a far more serious breach of privacy and intrusion into one's liberties than the other. I can assure you that if a boat person was found breaking into a house they would be jailed rather than just deported.

The moral wrongness of entering a the country must be determined by the purpose of the person doing it. Entering a country without consent if you fear for your safety is not wrong. Everyone on this forum would do it if them or their family was in danger.

No-one has said there should not be a system for reviewing the status of each person Psyber. But such a system can exist without declaring people to be illegal.

[Psyber]

I am glad you haven't objected to my queue jumper points.
If you are not fussed about definitions why did you say "by definition an illegal immigrant or an invader"?
I am also glad you have moved the discussion away from law and towards what is morally right. I think we can all agree that we should act according to what is the right thing to, not merely act in accordance with current law.
Drawing parallels between trespassing in someone's home and entering a country without consent is a bit rich. One is a far more serious breach of privacy and intrusion into one's liberties than the other. I can assure you that if a boat person was found breaking into a house they would be jailed rather than just deported.
The moral wrongness of entering a the country must be determined by the purpose of the person doing it. Entering a country without consent if you fear for your safety is not wrong. Everyone on this forum would do it if them or their family was in danger.
No-one has said there should not be a system for reviewing the status of each person Psyber. But such a system can exist without declaring people to be illegal.

Actually old chap I was being a little casual and sloppy.
I am not committed, totally, to the earnestness some feel is mandatory about this issue, and the politico-legality of it.
So, I didn't think to specify in the original post that I wasn't talking about legality.
I tried to clarify in the subsequent post that is was a primitive moral "definition" I meant.
[And I said I wasn't fussed about definitions in Law, not that I was not fussed about definitions..]

My first post was never about Law, just misinterpreted as being so because of the reader's set.
I regret I didn't anticipate anyone would think by definition always meant by legal definition.
That "moral" issue is far more old and deep.
People have, I assume, been killed in the past for entering tribal territories or countries without consent, while others have had the good fortune to be treated as guests.
I would hazard a guess that how they make the approach, the skills they bring, or the shortage of resources in the territory, have played a part in determining which response they get.
In ethological terms it is not much different from entering the territory of a Lion or Tiger.

We modern humans, seeing ourselves as less primitive than our forebears, or other species, have tried to set up a system to deal with the issue of asking permission to enter another's territory.
But, we still have a deep primitive impulse to revert to a more basic and aggressive response when others ignore the "code".

When I stayed with the Iban Dyak, briefly, in Sarawak, the tribe I was with took the code seriously, and had the courtesy to send an emissary ahead, with their equivalent of a white flag of truce, to seek permission to cross a narrow section of their neighbours' land to get where they needed to go. They saw it as appropriate and predictable that they may get a poison dart if they neglected this courtesy even in a mildly urgent situation.

So those who charge in without asking at all are breaking some very basic and deep rooted behavioural rules.
That said, I agree I would take the risk if my or my families life were under threat, with the knowledge that is some places that would involve trading one risk against another.
Some of these people though are counting on us being more "kind" and "soft" than they may be themselves if the situation were reversed.

[Dog_ger]

We need taller fences and sharper razor wire.

[Lazarus]

We need taller fences and sharper razor wire.

To put around Elizabeth.

[Lazarus]

This is the last post I will write about the definition issue as it is dragging on a bit.



My problem was with the term "illegal immigrants" even though they are not illegal. My understanding of what you have said is that entering another's country without consent is inherently wrong until proven otherwise and this is why you used that term. Hence there is a moral illegality rather than a legal illegality.

When someone says something is by definition "illegal" it is going to necessitate a legal definition. There is no other way to define something as illegal other than by looking at it legally. A moral illegality doesn't make sense as the only way something can be illegal is if it is contrary to law.

[dedja]

We need taller fences and sharper razor wire.

Just to placate the xenophobes?

I assume you're suggesting we do this at airports as well?

[Psyber]

This is the last post I will write about the definition issue as it is dragging on a bit.
My problem was with the term "illegal immigrants" even though they are not illegal. My understanding of what you have said is that entering another's country without consent is inherently wrong until proven otherwise and this is why you used that term. Hence there is a moral illegality rather than a legal illegality.

When someone says something is by definition "illegal" it is going to necessitate a legal definition. There is no other way to define something as illegal other than by looking at it legally. A moral illegality doesn't make sense as the only way something can be illegal is if it is contrary to law.

Point taken, another sloppiness, I'll rephrase my first post with an edit.

[Sojourner]

These niceties and legal argument are all very well but I predict "The Indonesian solution" will replace Howard's Pacific solution.

Looks very much the case at the moment, a little surprising considering recent revelations about how asylum seekers are reported to be treated in the Indonesian Detention Centres though?

[mick]

These niceties and legal argument are all very well but I predict "The Indonesian solution" will replace Howard's Pacific solution.

Looks very much the case at the moment, a little surprising considering recent revelations about how asylum seekers are reported to be treated in the Indonesian Detention Centres though?

I must say the hypocrisy of our Government is breath taking. George Negus was on the box last night lamenting there was not the thickness of a cigarette paper difference between the Howard government's policy and this government's policy on asylum seekers. Then Albanese is on the 7.30 report bemoaning the fact that we can't influence what happens to asylum seekers in Indonesia (Allegations of beatings etc.) even though it is our government's policy that has put them there.

[Psyber]

Perhaps we could rent to the UN Groote Eylandt, or some other island, rather like the Chinese rented Hong Kong to the British for a while.
It could then become a UN funded refugee centre, and be used as a temporary haven while various countries assessed the residents' immigration status.
That way they wouldn't automatically become our problem, or Indonesia's problem, from the outset.
The UN could then negotiate to extend its lease, or relocate the centre, when the lease was up.

[topsywaldron]

I must say the hypocrisy of our Government is breath taking.

And the way the Liberals are behaving federally you'll have about another five, but probably eight, years of it.

Enjoy.