the excising and offshoring and warehousing of these unauthorised arrivals has now been dealt with by the High Court.

that sort of thing was Australia's Guantanamo. so even without a Bill of Rights, the High Court put the government in its place and came down on the side of humanity and common sense.

but what about all those folks who got in the front door - the nazi war criminals and torturers from various odious regimes - all living quite comfortably, when will their bona fides ever be questioned?

I have one problem with this whole issue. We pay our immigration officials a lot of money and I am sure they are well educated. They reach a decision on whether the person in question is a legitimate refugee or not. If the person seeking refugee status is refused by the immigration department they then lodge a court claim. I suspect it is the taxpayer that foots the biil for this action and probably their legal representation. One of the reasons we had so many refugees in detention at one stage was the backlog of court claims. Iam not sure of the outcomes of these many cases but it seems to me that we should be taking the advice of our Immigration department in the first place. The amounts of taxpayers money expended in these court cases is rediculous. The immigration departments assesment should be binding and final. I am sure each case is researched extensivly before a decision is made. Stop the rot and the squandering of taxpayers money.

Agree wholeheartedly KenH.

No ID or bogus ID = no credibility.

Ditto Ibbit with this comment.

"It seems to me it would be far better to greatly increase the number of refugees we taken annually so the message got out that we would take refugees who apply to come through "the front door" and return those who did not."

It is for the Courts to 'interpret' the Law as passed by Parliment. If the Law is insufficiently clear or is blatantly contrary to the wishes of the democratic majority then pressure needs to be applied to our elected representatives to make changes or amendments.

I am one of the majority who does not want people in boats turning up willy-nilly and no apology for my attitude!

..and NOW you know why Oklahoma just voted NOT to allow either International law OR Sharia law to be considered in it's courts.

We need to make such issues votable at each election.

My list.

1/ Remove our signatory status from the UN refugee convention.
2/ Remove our SS from any convention which ties us to 'international obligations' which involve changing our law or constitution.

3/ Obliterate ALL so called "Human Rights" commissions and publically humliate them with confessions for their anti Australian culture crimes.

Todays 'rights' for refugees are tomorrows 'RAPE IS OK'for Muslims toward their wives... as activist judges try to re-shape society in Marx's image.

FIX AUSTRALIA.

1/ Stack the High court with conservative Judges.
2/ follow the list above.

In this case, while the High Court is correct in it's judgement. The Law is an ass as no account seems to have been taken as to our right to protect our borders or our right to determine who enters Australia or how.

Would this current High Court have approved of our dealings with the Japanese illegal immigrants in Papua New Guinea in the early 1940's, if in fact they'd all claimed they were asylum seekers?

Oh that's right we hadn't signed the UN convention then. But what if the Indonesian or Burmese or Chinese military decide to invade by claiming refugee status rather than fighting their way here?

We'd look bloody silly, ... invasion by UN Convention!

No one wants people arriving willy nilly in unseaworthy boats claiming refugee status, but i hardly see it as a victory if we discourage the behaviour by moving our laws more and more toward those of totalitarian states. A lasting answer may require some compromise and cooperation with our neighbours.
Certainly even the Howard governments laws never equalled those of countries like China but where are the limits and how long will it take before we get there. I have already see people post comments supporting such hateful methods so is this really where we want to go.
This was a free country, we have eroded our rights enough over the past twenty years all in the name of the common good. Mostly the laws seem sensible enough but still every time a judge makes a decision that dosen't suit us we want the law changed. Soon we will have Toni Abbott's vote for a judge policy along with the regulate the banks idea.
The high court doesn't just reflect public opinion, it also helps temper rash decisions by applying common sense to law and remembers the core values that really matter in our society. OH! they also use the constitution.