Talk:Australian migration zone

non chronological talk items below

"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)

Excision has no effect on the rights of Australian citizens or permanent residents (or anyone legally admitted to Australia. Some Australian territory - such as Norfolk Island - has not been part of the migration zone for a long time, if ever. If Australia really wanted to deny illegals access to the courts it would be simpler to legislate specifically to do that and not bother with any excision legislation. The reason for excision was that Australia wants to keep an onshore appeal process, but stop those arriving illegally in territories adjacent to neohbouring countries from taking advantage of that. JAJ 03:45, 19 February 2006 (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)

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". - Borofkin 22:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. The other page referenced in the External links section ( http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/71border.htm ), states "The migration zone is the area of Australia where a non-citizen must hold a visa in order to legally enter and remain in Australia." It then goes on to say "The territories excised from the migration zone are: .....". So, the devil is not in the term "migration zone", but in the term "excised". I had thought that it just meant "removed from", but clearly it has a deeper meaning. - Borofkin 23:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've reworded the article to reflect this new understanding. Let me know if you think it's closer to reality. - Borofkin 23:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy with the new wording. I think we are being more accurate than most of the Australian media ;) Robertbrockway 08:34, Nov 15 2994 (UTC)

It's asking a lot for the media to understand a concept as complex as this. Effectively Australian sovereign territory divides into three:

• outside the migration zone entirely, eg Norfolk Island
• "excised offshore places" that are in the migration zone for most purposes except where people arrive unlawfully, eg Christmas Island
• the rest of Australia

No passport is needed to travel between an excised offshore place and mainland Australia. This is different to Norfolk Island, for example. JAJ 03:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Effects

Question -

• "The 'excision' of areas from the migration zone has no impact on the rights of Australian citizens and permanent residents to travel to and remain in that area, and no documentation is required to travel between these areas and the rest of Australia"

then

• "For example, the territory of Norfolk Island, although under Australian sovereignty, is entirely outside the migration zone"

But Don't Australian's need a passport to travel to Norfolk, and not any Australian can just live there? - 121.208.89.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Norfolk Island etc are "outside the Migration Zone entirely" - which means different rules apply even to Australians compared to the Migration Zone.

The "excised areas" are still in the Migration Zone technically, but they have been "excised" for immigration purpsoes only, so some different rules apply for arrivals.

Then there's the rest of the Migration Zone where the "proper" rules continue to apply.

The article is really confusing on this point because of inconsistent and conflated terminology, someone should fix it up. --62.189.73.197 (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)