Manus Island

[TheDemonLord]

The amoral cunts I'm referring to is Australia since they are adamant they don't want the refugees coming to New Zealand regardless of any vetting or application process.

But feel free to include yourself in that group if you feel comfortable with it.

You should read my statement again - I didn't make any reference to any groups, nor did I make any reference to my membership (or lack-thereof) to said groups.

But again - what makes you think that their opposition comes from a position of Amorality?
And what qualifies you to be the arbiter of said morality?

[Katman]

One thing, however is clear is that in the current legislation there is no official guideline for determining who is an Economic Migrant vs Refugee.

Well you clearly consider yourself to be an expert in that matter.

You should probably write a book about it.

[husaberg]

[TheDemonLord]

Well you clearly consider yourself to be an expert in that matter.

You should probably write a book about it.

Awwww what's the matter - are you upset that the legal documents are a little bit more complex than "The Conspiracy Cat, in the IMF hat"...

I read what was available - and it's a very complex issue - with the legislation open to several plausible interpretations, that was written 50 years ago with a post WW2 view of Conflict.

[Katman]

Awwww what's the matter - are you upset that the legal documents are a little bit more complex than "The Conspiracy Cat, in the IMF hat"...

I read what was available - and it's a very complex issue - with the legislation open to several plausible interpretations, that was written 50 years ago with a post WW2 view of Conflict.

So how can you be so certain that these people are nothing but economic migrants?

[TheDemonLord]

So how can you be so certain that these people are nothing but economic migrants?

Their actions paint them as such - namely that they have refused to go anywhere except Australia, but it is not a legal judgement.

If all you've got is to try and dishonestly conflate one thing with another - then what does that say about the solidity of your position...

[Katman]

Their actions paint them as such - namely that they have refused to go anywhere except Australia, but it is not a legal judgement.

So on one hand you have the fact that there's no clear definition of what constitutes an economic migrant versus a refugee and on the other hand you have the fact that you know absolutely nothing about any of these individual's personal circumstances - but you're still happy to label them as economic migrants even though the Australian government doesn't even refer to them as such.

Is there no limit to your stupidity?

Thank fuck dumb cunts like you don't get to handle International Law.

[husaberg]

[TheDemonLord]

So on one hand you have the fact that there's no clear Legal definition of what constitutes an economic migrant versus a refugee

First up - I've amended your post because you keep trying to pull a deliberate bait-and-switch - by asserting there is no legal definition, therefore there is no definition at all.

Kinda telling that you have to resort to such fallacious tactics...

Do you understand that concepts can (and indeed must) exist in society before being codified in Law right?

So like before 1993, Do you think Trans people existed? Cause by your argument, they didn't exist. Unless, of course, you wish to concede that Society can have a very well informed definition of things that predates a legal definition (hint - one drives the other).

And so by using a societal definition - The fact is clear.

and on the other hand you have the fact that you know absolutely nothing about any of these individual's personal circumstances

I don't need to - they left a Safe country, where there was no active or prior conflicts, where they share many cultural values, in order to come to Australia.

When being given an alternative (PNG or anywhere that is safe, but not Australia) they refused. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

but you're still happy to label them as economic migrants even though the Australian government doesn't even refer to them as such.

See Societal vs Legal definition above, or alternatively - go back to reading "Noddy in conspiracyland"

Is there no limit to your stupidity?

Says the person who can't tell the difference between a legal definition and a societal one

Thank fuck dumb cunts like you don't get to handle International Law.

Well, I'd be a damn sight more equipped than you - see above and your trouble with definitions.

They are kinda important in Law...

[Katman]

First up - I've amended your post because you keep trying to pull a deliberate bait-and-switch - by asserting there is no legal definition, therefore there is no definition at all.

Kinda telling that you have to resort to such fallacious tactics...

Do you understand that concepts can (and indeed must) exist in society before being codified in Law right?

So like before 1993, Do you think Trans people existed? Cause by your argument, they didn't exist. Unless, of course, you wish to concede that Society can have a very well informed definition of things that predates a legal definition (hint - one drives the other).

Dude, fuck off with your autism.

The clear fact is that if society finds itself in a position of needing to deal with refugees then it should be expected to do so lawfully.

[husaberg]

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, fuck off with your autism.

The clear fact is that if society finds itself in a position of needing to deal with refugees then it should be expected to do so lawfully.

So why didn't Indonesia deal with them Lawfully?

Australia didn't violate the principle of forcing them back to the country of origin - which is all they are required to do, in order to act lawfully under international law.

[Katman]

So why didn't Indonesia deal with them Lawfully?

Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugees Convention and as such, accepts no obligation to allow refugees to permanently resettle there.

Refugees are registered there (with no legal rights) and often detained until they eventually leave to make their own way to a third country.

Australia, on the other hand, is a signatory - and as such, has certain obligations to fulfill.

[Katman]

Australia didn't violate the principle of forcing them back to the country of origin - which is all they are required to do, in order to act lawfully under international law.

You should probably read Article 34 of the Convention.

[Katman]

And the Australian Medical Association is now having to lobby their own government to allow doctors in to provide medical care for the refugees.