|
mNo edit summary
|
No edit summary
|
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I'm wondering if the title of this article is right? I certainly always thought the process was one of excision from the migration zone but then I see this: http://www.immi.gov.au/legislation/refugee/02.htm where it is |
I'm wondering if the title of this article is right? I certainly always thought the process was one of excision from the migration zone but then I see this: http://www.immi.gov.au/legislation/refugee/02.htm where it is |
||
clearly stated that "An excised offshore place is a part of Australia's territory. It remains part of Australia's migration zone." Hmm. [[User:Robertbrockway|Robertbrockway]] 0303, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
clearly stated that "An excised offshore place is a part of Australia's territory. It remains part of Australia's migration zone." Hmm. [[User:Robertbrockway|Robertbrockway]] 0303, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
||
:So, contrast that quote with this one: "The purpose of the legislation is to identify and define those parts of Australian territory which can be excised from the migration zone for the purposes of limiting the ability of persons who arrive in Australia unlawfully by boat to make a valid visa application." So, um, what they're saying is that Australia's "migration zone" still represents the same geographic area as Australias soverign territory, it's just that certain rights don't exist in certain parts (the excised bits) of that territory. Which means that there is no single name for the bulk of Australian territory where asylum application rights are unaffected. Gotta do some more research into wha is the general usage of the term "migration zone". - [[User:Borofkin|Borofkin]] 22:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|||
"There is also confusion over the effect on Australia's sovereignty over the excised area."
Really? I haven't heard anything about this... who has suggested that sovereignty is affected, and in what way? - Borofkin 02:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hey Borofkin, You asked about excision of territory from Australia's migration zone and confusion re sovereignty. When the Tiwi islands were retrospectively removed from the migration zone the Australian media reported Tiwi islanders becoming concerned that their islands were no longer part of Australia. In addition the issue has been raised on talk back radio, etc. For myself, I researched the topic to find out just what effects excision land from the migration zone might have other than the desired one. I wondered, for example, if a legal immigrant might not be able to start their permanent residency there. Various authorities have stated that there are no consequences to this except to stop illegal immigrants having recourse to the courts. Why not just remove all Australian territory from the migration zone then? Apparently there are 2 reason: 1) national pride, 2) the UN would get upset since it would amount to Australia excluding all illegals from the courts Robertbrockway 0300, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the title of this article is right? I certainly always thought the process was one of excision from the migration zone but then I see this: http://www.immi.gov.au/legislation/refugee/02.htm where it is clearly stated that "An excised offshore place is a part of Australia's territory. It remains part of Australia's migration zone." Hmm. Robertbrockway 0303, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
