Australia, the UN, and Refugees

Yea but you guys are skipping the point that as its stands now, the boat people we are talking about are illegal because of the above reasons. Just because you can type in that arriving by boat isnt illegal doesnt mean the current crop of boat people are not illegal asylum seekers. Hiding behind semantics and then acting holier then thou, yea good on yaz LOL.

 

They are not illegal asylum seekers.

It's not semantics, it's fact.

What part don't you get? Seriously.

They are perfectly legal asylum seekers.

 

You missed the point being made. It is illegal to simply arrive by boat IF you are not qualifying as an asylum seeker.

In other words YOU are assuming these latest arrivals are Proper asylum seekers, and they may not be. their status is unknown at this point. That is the semantics.

Oh don't get me wrong, I too would assume they are legal asylum seekers. it is not a failing.

 

They're legal asylum seekers, however, they may not be legal refugees.

 

No. It is not illegal to simply arrive by boat IF you are not qualifying as an asylum seeker. It is perfectly legal to arrive by boat and seek asylum - no matter if your method of arrival may be unlawful (not illegal), and no matter what the outcome of your quest for asylum may be.

I would be happy to discuss semantics with you - but I really don't think you are up to it.

 

If you paid an unlicensed car thief $1000 to steal a car and then drive you to a hotel, would you be an "illegal drinker" once inside that hotel? NO.

Boat people - no matter how they get on the boat - are legal asylum seekers.

Whether or not they are legal refugees remains to be seen.

Don't confuse refugee status with asylum seeking. Two different things.

 

Sorry, I may not have being very clear. Their status has not been determined, at this time. So we know Nothing, of whether they are claiming asylum or not.

I maybe wrong, now that I think about it. The point, that was raised. I made this assumption, of the comment, I was discussing. My assumption is more to semantics than anything.

 

What is an illegal asylum seeker if not someone seeking asylum illegally... qualification as a refugee is one, and method of entry should be another - if they are breaking international laws to get passage for the purpose of applying for asylum.

 

I am not pointing out the legality of the asylum seeker, I am pointing out, that at this time, we do not know they are seeking asylum. WE are all ASSUMING as such.

But my last post would say more to the semantics side, so it is pointless to argue this.

 

"Illegal asylum seeker" is a contradiction. Seeking asylum is legal.

 

Sorry, I got you wrong. Is it illegal, in international laws, to be smuggled to another country for asylum? If that is your contention, Could we have some evidence or something?

 

Seeking asylum is LEGAL.

Being smuggled into another country is generally unlawful - generally not illegal.

However, seeking asylum is LEGAL in any country which is a signatory to the UNHCR Conventions.

 

But it's not, therefore anyone seeking asylum on any boat is a perfectly legal asylum seeker.

If you drive a stolen car at 150 miles per hour the wrong way down a freeway to get to the beach, are you an "illegal swimmer" once you get there?

NO.

Similarly, boat people are not illegal asylum seekers.

 

ERRR...I don't think you even came close to answering my question, I do not even know why you would reply to that one.

 

This is so painful....


You asked:
Is it illegal, in international laws, to be smuggled to another country for asylum?

I answered you.


Do you need it simpler?
I'll give the dumbed down, yet slightly less correct answer:

No - it is not illegal, in international laws, to be smuggled to another country for asylum.

 

Oh, you really thought it was the question? So, sorry should have clarified myself.

I ASKED IF THAT IS WHAT HE BELIEVED. My question was to whether he could provide sources for that stance.

Just to make it very clear.
'Sorry, I got you wrong.' This is an apology to axialturban because my assumption of the original point would seem to me to be wrong.
then I asked
'Is it illegal, in international laws, to be smuggled to another country for asylum?' Is to ask, if I have his contention, that it is Illegal in international law to procure passage for the purpose of seeking asylum, as he very clearly states it is. That is clarified when I ask.
'If that is your contention,'meaning that it is what I understand his stance to be. And the question, which you did not answer, only supplied OPINION (not that I disagree totally)
'Could we have some evidence or something?' Now, I am not a road scholar (expected stupid attempt at whit) but I am sure the person the comment was directed at understood the comment and the question.

WTF, you proclaim to be so comprehending. You could not work that out? Oh, I see, your trying to score a point from something you clearly have forgotten I agree with you on. Yes BUGs. we have discussed this before, and yes you got my stance wrong then too.

 

OK - I think this is where you go onto the ignore list Gazza.

How much can a koala bear?

 

Thank you, so much. I was expecting your far greater whit.

Obviously, you can not bear much when you think that everyone is disputing YOU in the threads. Tell me, do you also think this way in the real world?

 

It's *wit, btw.

 

You guys LOL, you cannot just turn up in a boat legally unannounced. You need to advise customs in advance, and I think you need to have a VISA as well. There are border protection laws you know. Method of entry is relevant.

Are you suggesting someone hijack an aircraft and upon landing claim refugee status? Then we ignore the international crime commited getting here because now they are here they are claiming refugee status! Its the same with boat people, they finance and participate with an international crime (people smuggling) and then arrive in Australia claiming refugee status.

'Your silly analogies are not equivilant but this one of mine is directly equivilant.

 

Incorrect.

An asylum seeker can most certainly "just turn up in a boat legally unannounced".

It's called unauthorised entry, however, they are still perfectly legal asylum seekers.

You don't know much about law, do you?

 

Nobody suggested that. Why did you even mention such a thing?

 

LOL

Do you understand exactly what an asylum seeker is?

 

You said;

If you drove 150mph and were spotted doing it by the Police, and then went for a swim you'd still be arrested for speeding. Which is my point, they are illegal because they are breaking laws in getting here.

That's why I made that analogy about the hijacked aircraft, to make it clearer to you that the method of entry is relevant. That's what is illegal about it, people smuggling is illegal and they are financing and facilitating and participating in it.