Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Cultured_Bogan]

I applaud the move to Nauru. I don't care if Julia backflipped or Abbott is vindicated it means one thing: those who are truly desperate to come here will run the risk of sitting in a processing facility for a year while their claims are processed. It should weed out the economic refugees who aren't a sure thing of being let in.

That said, we should spend more time weeding out the "tourists" who come here travelling unusually light for a holiday and then simply don't go home.

 

[Yossarian]

When has the AFP ever prosecuted someone for paying someone to provide boat passage to an asylum seeker?

In any case read the legislation… It is an offence to bring **another** person into Australia. They aren't helping them break a law they are, if anything, the recipients of an illegal service.

Im not a lawyer but isn't knowingly receiving and illegal service an offense in most cases? I don't judge them for doing so or think it a bad offence but i would still constitute it an offense all the same

It isn't no. Not unless the legislation says it is and to quote the Migration Act:
_**Offence of people smuggling**
(1) A person (the first person ) commits an offence if:\
\
(a) the first person organises or facilitates the bringing or coming to Australia, or the entry or proposed entry into Australia, of another person (the second person ); and\
\
(b) the second person is a non-citizen; and\
\
© the second person had, or has, no lawful right to come to Australia._

Being the second person is not, if and of itself, a criminal offence...

 

[Yossarian]

I applaud the move to Nauru. I don't care if Julia backflipped or Abbott is vindicated it means one thing: those who are truly desperate to come here will run the risk of sitting in a processing facility for a year while their claims are processed. It should weed out the economic refugees who aren't a sure thing of being let in.

That said, we should spend more time weeding out the "tourists" who come here travelling unusually light for a holiday and then simply don't go home.

People already run the risk of sitting in a processing facility. Only now they'll be doing it in Nauru rather than say Port Headland. It will still be the same people at DIAC and then potentially the RRT who will be assessing the protection visa claims.

As for the "tourists" who don't go home (most of whom are from the UK or NZ) Customs are pretty good at spotting a non-genuine tourist.

 

[Swordy]

When has the AFP ever prosecuted someone for paying someone to provide boat passage to an asylum seeker?

In any case read the legislation… It is an offence to bring **another** person into Australia. They aren't helping them break a law they are, if anything, the recipients of an illegal service.

Im not a lawyer but isn't knowingly receiving and illegal service an offense in most cases? I don't judge them for doing so or think it a bad offence but i would still constitute it an offense all the same

It isn't no. Not unless the legislation says it is and to quote the Migration Act:
_**Offence of people smuggling**
(1) A person (the first person ) commits an offence if:\
\
(a) the first person organises or facilitates the bringing or coming to Australia, or the entry or proposed entry into Australia, of another person (the second person ); and\
\
(b) the second person is a non-citizen; and\
\
© the second person had, or has, no lawful right to come to Australia._

Being the second person is not, if and of itself, a criminal offence...

Would not the person being smuggled be guilty of an offence under that same act - Does this apply?

_MIGRATION ACT 1958\
\
Persons involved in contravening civil penalty provision
(1) A person must not:\
\
(a) **aid, abet, counsel or procure a contravention of a civil penalty provision**; or\
\
(b) induce (by threats, promises or otherwise) a contravention of a civil penalty provision; or\
\
© conspire to contravene a civil penalty provision.\
\
(2) This Act applies to a person who contravenes subsection (1) in relation to a civil penalty provision as if the person had contravened the provision._

Isn't the definition of aide & abet something along the lines of actions and encouragement to commit and offence? In this section, the offence must have 'penalty units' attached, which the section relating to people smuggling does have. Surely those paying people smugglers are aiding and abetting the smuggler to commit the offence. Without them, there would be no offence..............

 

[Yossarian]

By that definition you'd have to charge victims of sexual trafficking.

Aiding and abet is not the same as benefit from. I'd think the former relates to providing assistance for an illegal act whereas the latter is benefiting from the same. In the first case you're a direct participant in the act, in the second you aren't.

The offence is a person bringing non-citizens into the country. I'm not a lawyer either but I'd have thought the intention of the act is clear:

Organising people without visas to come to Australia is an offence
Helping someone to do the same is also an offence
Being the person without a visa is not an offence.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I applaud the move to Nauru. I don't care if Julia backflipped or Abbott is vindicated it means one thing: those who are truly desperate to come here will run the risk of sitting in a processing facility for a year while their claims are processed. It should weed out the economic refugees who aren't a sure thing of being let in.

That said, we should spend more time weeding out the "tourists" who come here travelling unusually light for a holiday and then simply don't go home.

People already run the risk of sitting in a processing facility. Only now they'll be doing it in Nauru rather than say Port Headland. It will still be the same people at DIAC and then potentially the RRT who will be assessing the protection visa claims.

As for the "tourists" who don't go home (most of whom are from the UK or NZ) Customs are pretty good at spotting a non-genuine tourist.

Maybe so Yoss, I was simply trying to illustrate that boat people are only a small percentage of "illegal" immigration yet yield 99% of the headlines and that I hope we are pumping the same money into chasing people who get off the plane here in good faith that they will return and simply don't go home. I have more of a problem with that as those people complete refute the good faith that the Australian government places in them to invite them into our country on the promise that they will return home.

 

[Yossarian]

I applaud the move to Nauru. I don't care if Julia backflipped or Abbott is vindicated it means one thing: those who are truly desperate to come here will run the risk of sitting in a processing facility for a year while their claims are processed. It should weed out the economic refugees who aren't a sure thing of being let in.

That said, we should spend more time weeding out the "tourists" who come here travelling unusually light for a holiday and then simply don't go home.

People already run the risk of sitting in a processing facility. Only now they'll be doing it in Nauru rather than say Port Headland. It will still be the same people at DIAC and then potentially the RRT who will be assessing the protection visa claims.

As for the "tourists" who don't go home (most of whom are from the UK or NZ) Customs are pretty good at spotting a non-genuine tourist.

Maybe so Yoss, I was simply trying to illustrate that boat people are only a small percentage of "illegal" immigration yet yield 99% of the headlines and that I hope we are pumping the same money into chasing people who get off the plane here in good faith that they will return and simply don't go home. I have more of a problem with that as those people complete refute the good faith that the Australian government places in them to invite them into our country on the promise that they will return home.

Absolutely. I certainly agree with that. I can tell you for a fact that far more protection visa applicants are onshore rather than offshore applicants.

 

[slacko]

What's disappointing is that the level of discussion in this thread is far better than anything else I come across.
This is a football team forum…
Of only talk back and other media was this good.
My hats off to nearly everyone who has posted in here, I think I've read nearly all posts and the level of debate is pretty high.
\
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[cktiger]

By that definition you'd have to charge victims of sexual trafficking.

Aiding and abet is not the same as benefit from. I'd think the former relates to providing assistance for an illegal act whereas the latter is benefiting from the same. In the first case you're a direct participant in the act, in the second you aren't.

The offence is a person bringing non-citizens into the country. I'm not a lawyer either but I'd have thought the intention of the act is clear:

Organising people without visas to come to Australia is an offence
Helping someone to do the same is also an offence
Being the person without a visa is not an offence.

Yoss , you are mixing up people smuggling with people trafficking.
This is from the Australian Federal Police website….

**Why people smuggling threatens all Australians**People smugglers are individuals or groups who assist others to illegally enter a country. In the case of Australia, people smugglers provide air or sea access.

**People smuggling is a major threat to all Australians because:**
•there are serious security and criminal concerns when people arriving in Australia are not properly identified
•there are major quarantine and health risks involved in people bypassing normal immigration channels
•processing illegal immigrants creates significant logistical problems and costs
•it infringes Australia's sovereignty, giving us less control over our borders.
The laws surrounding people smuggling fall under section 232A of the Migration Act 1958.

**People smuggling versus people trafficking**Although the terms people smuggling and people trafficking are often used interchangeably, they are different. People smugglers are paid by those who wish to enter a country illegally. The people wishing to migrate are involved voluntarily. People traffickers, on the other hand, use coercion and/or deception, to force people to illegally enter a country. Once the illegal immigrants are in place, people traffickers often continue to exploit them.

 

[Winnipeg]

Didn't mean it as a personal attack Winnipeg.
Just saying you shouldn't only rely on statistics - and you were the one who said the only refugees you had ever met were from Vietnam .
To your point though…
The people in red ARE less deserving than the people in green because they are breaking the rules.
They have money to get out of their countries and buy a spot on a boat to jump the queue.
The people in green abide by the rules set by OUR country.
You might also like to know that people who legitimately have reason to emigrate (apart from humanitarian reasons) get held up because the immigration department uses its resources on the queue jumpers.

that's cool, I wasn't really offended :slight_smile:
\
\
this is interesting re: Abbott's constant use of the word 'illegal'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-17/cassidy-a-rare-challenge-for-abbott/4203120

seriously I could handle probably any other assclown being next PM but not that bloke

 

[Rambo2714]

Generally people who come to Aus by boat , having been living in Poverty:

''Poverty is the pronounced deprivation of well being. It is the inability to satisfy one's basic needs because one lacks income to buy services or from lack of access to services.''

And are on the brink if Absolute poverty :

''Absolute poverty or destitution refers to the state of severe deprivation of basic human needs, which commonly includes food, water, sanitation, clothing, shelter, health care, education and information.''

If your children were living in poverty , what would you do ? Would you wait in refugee camps indefinatly for years and possibly decades ? or would you try and find a way to some sort of prosperity for them?

 

[Yossarian]

By that definition you'd have to charge victims of sexual trafficking.

Aiding and abet is not the same as benefit from. I'd think the former relates to providing assistance for an illegal act whereas the latter is benefiting from the same. In the first case you're a direct participant in the act, in the second you aren't.

The offence is a person bringing non-citizens into the country. I'm not a lawyer either but I'd have thought the intention of the act is clear:

Organising people without visas to come to Australia is an offence
Helping someone to do the same is also an offence
Being the person without a visa is not an offence.

Yoss , you are mixing up people smuggling with people trafficking.
This is from the Australian Federal Police website….

**Why people smuggling threatens all Australians**People smugglers are individuals or groups who assist others to illegally enter a country. In the case of Australia, people smugglers provide air or sea access.

**People smuggling is a major threat to all Australians because:**
•there are serious security and criminal concerns when people arriving in Australia are not properly identified
•there are major quarantine and health risks involved in people bypassing normal immigration channels
•processing illegal immigrants creates significant logistical problems and costs
•it infringes Australia's sovereignty, giving us less control over our borders.
The laws surrounding people smuggling fall under section 232A of the Migration Act 1958.

**People smuggling versus people trafficking**Although the terms people smuggling and people trafficking are often used interchangeably, they are different. People smugglers are paid by those who wish to enter a country illegally. The people wishing to migrate are involved voluntarily. People traffickers, on the other hand, use coercion and/or deception, to force people to illegally enter a country. Once the illegal immigrants are in place, people traffickers often continue to exploit them.

I'm not actually and I've spent the last 12 years of my life working with the two. The section I quoted above is from Section 233A of the Migration Act which defines the broad offence of People Smuggling. As the AFP notes that difference between trafficking and smuggling is generally the willingness of the parties being carried into Australia but in both cases the offence of facilitating the entry of non-visa holders into Australia holds true.
232A clarifies that being a participant in the IMA enterprise carries penalties and does not require a person to directly interact with those being smuggled or indeed the enterprise of smuggling itself. That is to say a boat captain can’t just say he was driving a boat and had no idea of what was happening – the mere fact he has those people on his boat is an offence.
233A notes the broader concept of the offence in that the entry does not need to be from an IMA. The offence of people smuggling is that they are facilitating the entry into Australia of persons without a valid visa to enter the country. That differentiates them from say tour organisers.
Human traffickers may still guilty of being people smugglers [generally those trafficked do have valid visas but are then forced to contravene those visas or work against their will] but normally face penalties under (from memory because it’s been a few years since I’ve done a sexual servitude case) divisions of the criminal code relating to the act of trafficking and the onshore treatment of those trafficked. From memory it was 270 and 271…

 

[happy_tiger]

I think I've made it pretty clear I'm not Julia's biggest fan , but my condolences to Julia and her family and friends on the death of her father

 

[Yossarian]

I think I've made it pretty clear I'm not Julia's biggest fan , but my condolences to Julia and her family and friends on the death of her father

Yes nice work Happy. I'd also add there seemed to be a lot of unnecessary footage of the PM becoming emotional about the news. I really don't see the need to show her breaking down - I understand she is upset about her father dying without needing to see footage.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I think I've made it pretty clear I'm not Julia's biggest fan , but my condolences to Julia and her family and friends on the death of her father

Yes nice work Happy. I'd also add there seemed to be a lot of unnecessary footage of the PM becoming emotional about the news. I really don't see the need to show her breaking down - I understand she is upset about her father dying without needing to see footage.

I don't even see why it's front page news. It's a personal matter for her to deal with, seems to be getting far too much air time for my liking. It certainly has brought out the worst in some people also, I've seen some pretty disgusting things written about her since it was reported.

 

[dermo]

I think I've made it pretty clear I'm not Julia's biggest fan , but my condolences to Julia and her family and friends on the death of her father

Yes nice work Happy. I'd also add there seemed to be a lot of unnecessary footage of the PM becoming emotional about the news. I really don't see the need to show her breaking down - I understand she is upset about her father dying without needing to see footage.

Agreed, it happens way to much in situations like this, I don't see the need to have a camera and microphone in someones face as they cry as if i was unaware it was an emotional situation

 

[Rambo2714]

The Prime Minister tells him , and tells him well
\
\
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-09/j … sy/4303634
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

 

[westTAHger]

looking forward to the day when Abbot is prime minister and Costello is the treasurer.

imagine the headlines and laughter around the world around the world, " Australia is run by Abbot and Costello "

most of the older people on here would smile at that. :wink:

 

[Snowy]

The Prime Minister is a liar!

 

[AmericanHistoryX]

no carbon tax
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_