President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

CMOTDibbler

recedite wrote: »

You're not wrong there.
But you're not making a great case for them to be accepted by either Australia or the USA as immigrants.

I asked earlier the question earlier; in what way are these people considered international "refugees"? Since when does a personal background of service in a drugs gang entitle you to bypass the normal immigration procedures of Australia or the USA?

You think the people involved in gangs, crime, corruption and drugs are fleeing their homeland?

Memnoch

recedite wrote: »

Take it up with the govt. of Papua New Guinea then.
From the link....
Any genuine refugee "fleeing a war" will find that PNG is a safe country.

That is not for you to determine. Australia has international obligations under the Geneva convention for refugees. It's actions are illegal.

It is obliged to take in genuine refugees. Holding them in detention centers in horrible conditions is a gross violation of its human rights obligations. As is sheparding them around like cattle in order to appease its own internal political quarrels.

Refugees deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and given the chance to rebuild their lives.

Anything else is an affront to human dignity, decency and morality.

Mr.Micro

demfad wrote: »

There is absolutely no substantiation for that. Russia and Bannon knew who the likely Dem nominee was a long way out. That is why Bannon and Rebekah Mercer set up and used the the Government accountability Institute to produce propaganda against her including 'Clinton Cash'.
In concert Russian interference in US social media started as early as 2014 (confirmed by Bannon in a Vatican interview that year). Essentially the 'crooked Hilary' narrative started in 'Clinton Cash' was amplified by fake news, Russian trolls and their alt-right troll site lackeys. The senate set up a special investigation into Benghazi with no joy. She was quite popular before this propaganda onslaught and her credentials are as good as any previous candidate.
With such a volume of fake news, disinformation and criticism it is bound to stick.
I see most of the Whitehouse inner circle are using non-whitehouse infrastructure. Trump is still using his old android device which the FSC have surely hacked. Scavino who manages @potus was using a gmail login. Spicer actually tweeted his password twice unknowingly.
Not such a big deal anymore for Republicans?

Many people voted for Trump, simply to stop her, no other reason. Not because of any policy or slogan. She was never a Democrat but Republican in Democrat clothes. She voted for the war in Iraq. Regardless of the so called slur on her with propaganda, it was nothing to what Trump was called, racist, facist, rude, sexist, bigoted, and all the rest. He did not have a hope last August. Yet despite all the reprehensible tags and truths he beat Clinton. I am no fan of Trump but Clinton is no loss.

MightyMandarin

Rightwing wrote: »

They are completely irrelevant. He can get 8 years if he wants, and then set up Ivanka for 8.

Most people would vote for a young good looking lady. Clinton fell down in this regard on top of the 100+ other things.

Well considering he's a fascist it's only a matter of time before he changes the electoral process to hold onto power.

Nody

Now I'm not a fan of Trump but I'll also give him credit when credit is due. I'm surprised but impressed if the below is correct and remains his stance:

The Trump administration has told Israel to stop constructing new settlements - or expanding others - because it "may not help" achieve peace with Palestinians.

The American desire for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has remained unchanged for 50 years,” the White House statement reads. “While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal.”

Article here.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

Explain how Australia have any input into this exchange deal then? The people sought asylum in Australian territory. Australia then offloaded them outside Australian territory.

To seek asylum legally you must be on Australian soil. Someone has no legal standing to seek asylum in the middle of a ocean or even on coastal territorial waters and the Australian Navy is well within it legal rights to intercept and move boats onwards.

Australia could not intercept the vessel on the high seas. Here, the boat has every right to navigate freely under international law, subject to very few exceptions (piracy, interception treaty). Vessels enjoy a right to innocent passage even in a state’s territorial waters.

However, the entry of alien migrants is not innocent passage, and a state is free to prevent the violation of its immigration laws in the contiguous zone.

The international law protecting refugees does not require coastal states to grant entry to alien migrants approaching its shores.

http://theconversation.com/court-to-rule-on-intercepting-and-transferring-asylum-seekers-at-sea-29346

Australian law only applies within the sovereign territory of Australia. The detention centre is illegal.

No, it's legal as per Australian law andunder Naru law. So, its fully legal in both legal duristicitions.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

To seek asylum legally you must be on Australian soil. Someone has no legal standing to seek asylum in the middle of a ocean or even on coastal territorial waters and the Australian Navy is well within it legal rights to intercept and move boats onwards.



http://theconversation.com/court-to-rule-on-intercepting-and-transferring-asylum-seekers-at-sea-29346

Did you actually read that article? I'm guessing not.

The refugees in question were within Australian territorial waters - that's the reason they could be forced into the Australian run detention centres. So Australia's obligations of non-refoulment under international law applied.

In attempting to avoid its non-return obligations under international law, the government has put itself in a quandary. Taking these boat people onto its customs patrol vessel brings them, under international law, into Australian territory. This is because, at international law, the vessel is an extension of the state whose flag it flies.

FA Hayek wrote: »

No, it's legal as per Australian law andunder Naru law. So, its fully legal in both legal duristicitions.

The centre in question isn't in Nauru, so it's nothing to do with either Australian or Nauru law. The centre is illegal under the law of the state it's within; PNG.

I'm not sure how you managed to get so much wrong in so few words?

recedite

alastair wrote: »

Did you actually read that article? I'm guessing not.

Did you read it yourself? The case concerns different legal interpretations.

The international law protecting refugees does not require coastal states to grant entry to alien migrants approaching its shores. Nevertheless, international refugee law does oblige states not to return (refoule) individuals to countries in which they may be persecuted, or face torture or serious harm.
There are two approaches to the question as to when this obligation arises. The restrictive approach argues that it applies only when the asylum seeker has entered the state’s territory. The broader approach suggests that it applies even beyond the state’s territory, and territorial sea borders.

The Australians have adopted the restrictive approach.

This is a conversation that we should be having in Europe with regard to the Mediterranean Sea.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

Did you actually read that article? I'm guessing not.

The refugees in question were within Australian territorial waters - that's the reason they could be forced into the Australian run detention centres. So Australia's obligations of non-refoulment under international law applied.

Sorry, you are wrong. First of all international law does not supersede Australian Law. Secondly, Australia is acting within guidelines by resettling them out of harms way, its just they won't be settled in Australia. Lastly, Australia is within its legal rights to protect its borders if illegal acts are occurring, as per the article. There is no automatic right to Asylum, there is the right to claim asylum if you land on Australian soil but not the automatic right to be accepted as one. None of these people ever set foot on Australian soil and they never will be.

The centre in question isn't in Nauru, so it's nothing to do with either Australian or Nauru law. The centre is illegal under the law of the state it's within; PNG.

The current resettlements will be going to the USA in exchange for people the other way around. The PNG courts did find the agreement illegal last year, so this is the permanent solution for those that was resettled as both states have moved under their legal obligations. None of those in detention in PNG will ever be settled in Australia and they have no legal right to.

However, the same border protection strategy is still enforce with those seeking asylum via boats will never be settled in Australia and sent to Naru, all of which is legal under both jurisdictions this very day.

Kintarō Hattori

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE

I've only just seen that today. I can't believe they've elected this man. It makes such a mockery of the institution.

Memnoch

FA Hayek wrote: »

Sorry, you are wrong. First of all international law does not supersede Australian Law...
However, the same border protection strategy is still enforce with those seeking asylum via boats will never be settled in Australia and sent to Naru, all of which is legal under both jurisdictions this very day.

Both jurisdictions are acting illegally under international law as laid down by the geneva convention on refugees.

Of course all of this talk of legality is really semantical play in order to justify the unjustifiable.

The actions of the Australian government on this matter have been quite horrendous and an affront to human decency, dignity and morality.

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

You're not wrong there.
But you're not making a great case for them to be accepted by either Australia or the USA as immigrants.

I asked earlier the question earlier; in what way are these people considered international "refugees"? Since when does a personal background of service in a drugs gang entitle you to bypass the normal immigration procedures of Australia or the USA?

You do realise you're asking an impossible question there? Between them, they had over 20,000 refugees abroad as of 2014, those likely range from anything from gang activity, to innocents persecuted by gangs for a variety of reasons (land, resources, extortion), to family members of gang members/dead gang members/etc, to whistleblowers on corrupt governments, to those in extreme poverty, to a host of other reasons, ... trying to paint all refugees from is about as inaccurate a claim as those three countries being relatively peaceful and prosperous with sizable oil and tourist industries.

FA Hayek

Memnoch wrote: »

Both jurisdictions are acting illegally under international law as laid down by the geneva convention on refugees.

Of course all of this talk of legality is really semantical play in order to justify the unjustifiable.

The actions of the Australian government on this matter have been quite horrendous and an affront to human decency, dignity and morality.

Yet, both Australian and Naru courts have ruled them legal, which is all that matters at the end of the day. International law has no jurisdiction and is often used by those who want to take a moral high ground and ignore the laws that matter, that is laws of sovereign nation states.

Sovereign states are sovereign and the government of Australia are voted in by its people, who support these rules on border protection. Unless you want to claim that unelected people should have dominion over independent nation states and tell them what to do. Surely you are not suggestion that are you?

jobbridge4life

Rightwing wrote: »

Trump can build the greatest dynasty in US political history, even dwarfing that of the Kennedys.

I remember when those on the right used to bemoan ‘liberals’ and those on the left fawning over Obama. I remember when those on the right used to attack Obama for being too much of a celebrity. I remember when those on the right used to rant about Obama as a tyrant.

Now it appears that some on the right don’t just want a billionaire, vulgarian, TV celeb as President, they want him and his family virtually enthroned. It still shocks me how many people want a strong man figure to ‘save’ them.

CMOTDibbler

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I remember when those on the right used to bemoan ‘liberals’ and those on the left fawning over Obama. I remember when those on the right used to attack Obama for being too much of a celebrity. I remember when those on the right used to rant about Obama as a tyrant.

Now it appears that some on the right don’t just want a billionaire, vulgarian, TV celeb as President, they want him and his family virtually enthroned. It still shocks me how many people want a strong man figure to ‘save’ them.

Ah yeah. But before you get the strong man to come and save them, someone has to ramp up the fear factor so that there's something to save them from. :rolleyes:

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Yet, both Australian and Naru courts have ruled them legal, which is all that matters at the end of the day. International law has no jurisdiction and is often used by those who want to take a moral high ground and ignore the laws that matter, that is laws of sovereign nation states.

Sovereign states are sovereign and the government of Australia are voted in by its people, who support these rules on border protection. Unless you want to claim that unelected people should have dominion over independent nation states and tell them what to do. Surely you are not suggestion that are you?

It's Papua New Guinea - no foreign courts get to 'rule' on their laws. International law has a jurisdiction - the clue is in the name. It's binding on all signatories, and Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. But the law applied in this cases is the law of the land I question - PNG. The Australians drew them into an illegal detention scheme.

Sovereign states do indeed make their own laws, which is why the centre has been determined to be illegal. I'm wondering however, how you manage to account for the unelected Australian people determining refugee swaps out of a sovereign nation to a third nation, without any reference to that sovereign nation (PNG). It's as if the refugees were indeed acknowledged to be the responsibility of Australia! Quite the head-scratcher.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

Did you read it yourself? The case concerns different legal interpretations.

The Australians have adopted the restrictive approach.

This is a conversation that we should be having in Europe with regard to the Mediterranean Sea.

The argument over a restrictive approach or the broader approach don't apply here, as the refugees were within Australian territorial waters anyway. They fell within the restrictive boundaries regardless of any broader debate.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Secondly, Australia is acting within guidelines by resettling them out of harms way, its just they won't be settled in Australia. Lastly, Australia is within its legal rights to protect its borders if illegal acts are occurring, as per the article. There is no automatic right to Asylum, there is the right to claim asylum if you land on Australian soil but not the automatic right to be accepted as one.

Never claimed there was, but there is an automatic right to claim asylum in the territory you find yourself in. That's the legal obligation that Australia is attempting to circumvent. It acknowledges that itself, in the framing of the new maritime laws. They're in contravention of a law that they are a signatory to.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

Never claimed there was, but there is an automatic right to claim asylum in the territory you find yourself in. That's the legal obligation that Australia is attempting to circumvent. It acknowledges that itself, in the framing of the new maritime laws. They're in contravention of a law that they are a signatory to.

No, as I already stated being in territorial waters does not equate to an automatic right to claim asylum. The courts did not see it that way when it ruled in favour of the Naru deal.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

No, as I already stated being in territorial waters does not equate to an automatic right to claim asylum. The courts did not see it that way when it ruled in favour of the Naru deal.

The 1951 convention makes very clear that there is a right to claim asylum in the territory of signatory states. The UNCLOS, which again, Australia is a signatory to, defines the territorial boundaries of Australia. Australia acknowledges this in the phrasing of their revised maritime laws. It specifically attempts to over-ride it's obligations in that regard.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

International law has a jurisdiction

No, international law has zero jurisdiction on Australian law. There are no international police or higher court that will compel Australia or indeed any state to comply with these 'laws'.

Sovereign states do indeed make their own laws, .

Which is why the border protection strategy is still in operation and why no migrant either currently in PNG or Naru will settle in Australia. Once the PNG swap is complete those on Naru will either stay there or be resettled elsewhere but not in Australia as per the strategy.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

No, international law has zero jurisdiction on Australian law. There are no international police or higher court that will compel Australia or indeed any state to comply with these 'laws'.

It's been written into Australian law since January 22nd 1954. I think it's had ample time to register with them, if not you. :rolleyes:

http://www3.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1954/5.html

FA Hayek wrote: »

Which is why the border protection strategy is still in operation and why no migrant either currently in PNG or Naru will settle in Australia. Once the PNG swap is complete those on Naru will either stay there or be resettled elsewhere but not in Australia as per the strategy.

No. The reason why it's still in operation, despite it's illegality, is that the victims of the policy are (or were, in the case of PNG) unable to appeal their situation to the courts. Nauru is controlled by a tin-pot authoritarian who expelled any critics of his rule, so there's little opportunity for justice in that jurisdiction.

CMOTDibbler

FA Hayek wrote: »

No, international law has zero jurisdiction on Australian law. There are no international police or higher court that will compel Australia or indeed any state to comply with these 'laws'.

Thank you. That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

rgossip30

The only logic is that Obama set Trump up with this refugee deal . He also approved a host of other regulations before he left office .
An opinion only .

WinnyThePoo

rgossip30 wrote: »

The only logic is that Obama set Trump up with this refugee deal . He also approved a host of other regulations before he left office .

Your going to need to explain this logic.

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

The only logic is that Obama set Trump up with this refugee deal . He also approved a host of other regulations before he left office .

The refugee deal isn't binding on anyone. The agreement with Obama was a handshake one afaik, so no regulations involved, and nothing legally binding. If Trump is going ahead with it, as it seems he is, it would seem to be down to the bollocking Turnball gave him back on the phone.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

The refugee deal isn't binding on anyone. The agreement with Obama was a handshake one afaik, so no regulations involved, and nothing legally binding. If Trump is going ahead with it, as it seems he is, it would seem to be down to the bollocking Turnball gave him back on the phone.

He intends to cap refugee intake at 50k so this would go towards that figure .

alastair

rgossip30 wrote: »

He intends to cap refugee intake at 50k so this would go towards that figure .

Nothing to do with the Australians. He could have said no and made up his 'cap' elsewhere. The notion of a refugee cap is legal nonsense in any case. He's like everyone else, at the mercy of the number of successful applications that are made.

rgossip30

alastair wrote: »

Nothing to do with the Australians. He could have said no and made up his 'cap' elsewhere. The notion of a refugee cap is legal nonsense in any case. He's like everyone else, at the mercy of the number of successful applications that are made.

I would think he will have difficulty with such a cap anyhow unless extreme vetting can reduce the numbers .

Who needed another Merkel women with money .....pussies .The finances have to be reined in this man was asked to put himself forward for the job .You ever met a company fixer .

Professor Moriarty

rgossip30 wrote: »

I would think he will have difficulty with such a cap anyhow unless extreme vetting can reduce the numbers .

Who needed another Merkel women with money .....pussies .The finances have to be reined in this man was asked to put himself forward for the job .You ever met a company fixer .

Well, Trump likes to grab pussies.

You know, if you think Trump is the answer then you don't understand the question.