James

The fact that I keep proving you 100% wrong, and that you keep dishonestly insisting that you're right without being able to defend your own argument, is not a "cheap shot".

"I have been involved in this area of law for more than 30 years ..."

You obviously haven't understood the most basic things about it.

Get this.

1. Something isn't "illegal" for no other reason than that you don't like it.
2. The starting position is that the Migration Act makes it illegal for a non-citizen to enter Australia without a visa.
3. Asylum-seekers have no legal right whatsoever to enter Australia's territory without a visa, for the purpose of lodging a refugee claim.

You're talking legal nonsense. I've challenged you to provide authority *legally binding on Australia* for what you're saying, and you haven't done it, and you're still not doing it, because you're wrong, and you know it, and you keep knowingly trying to deceive others.

"Just a limited number of examples of actions contrary to international law include the turning back of boats on the high seas"

There is no such law. If there is, prove it.

"the unlimited detention of children"

Prove it.

"the arbitrary exclusion of refugees from having their cases determined"

They're not excluding them onshore; they're excluding them, if at all, offshore = you're legally wrong.

"the use of camps on Manus and Nauru without observing the required procedures"

What required procedures? Required by what law?

"and many many others"

More drivel.

"is not a matter for serious debate other than those (such as yourself apparently) who resolutely refuse to accept that fact"

You are only making a fool of yourself trying to prove the legality or illegality of something by that foolish argument.

Either cite proper legal authority or admit you can't and you're wrong.

No one has to prove anything to you Jardine K. Jardine. You are deliberately being difficult, for the sake of being a smartie pants. Why?
Now do us and yourself a favour, buy and read, "The Law of Refugee Status" by James C. Hathaway. I bet you haven't even heard of it. Once read and digested it you may return to this tutorial, should you persist with your non-sense you are headed for a big F.

Bruce Haigh

Well no wonder you like illegal boat people James O'Neill, you must have done quite well out of them over 30 years.

Bruce Haigh perhaps you could show a bit of support & consideration for the people who paid your salary all those years, & probable supply a nice retirement pension for you.

Your attitude of superiority is a bit misplaced. In a different time you would be reasonably considered something of a quisling.

Asylum seekers need passports and visas to make it as far as Malaysia or Indonesia!
Once there, at the behest of organised crime, they invariably destroy those documents.
They then shell out up to $15,000.00, for a one way trip to Christmas Island, in a dangerous unseaworthy rotting hulk!
Air fares are around $250 return per person!
Just what prevents these people from retaining their identifying paper work and just applying for a tourist visa, from their point of origin?
And then once on the Australian mainland, apply for asylum?
If they are i.e., former Afghan translators, who wore our uniform and worked for us, there'd be very few impediments placed in their way for them or their families; particularly if they were bright enough to retain their ID paper work!
There are few impediments for people, who have the means to fly as fare paying passengers, to as far as Indonesia, to just continue that journey here, as visa holding visitors; and for far less than they shell out to organised crime!
People who have deliberately destroyed their documentation, go through an academy award performance, when we refuse them entry.
Our only obligation to irregular arrivals, is to provide shelter, while we try to verify their claims.
Even then, we are under no obligation to settle them here, any more than we would be obliged to share our homes, with someone who breaks in during the night and just takes up permanent uninvited residence!
I put it, that people who deliberately destroy their ID's, have something to hide; and given that is so, we are not obliged to settle them here ever!
They could be anybody, even part of a people smuggling criminal organisation!
Rhrosty.

I think the reason why we are in this conundrum is because of people who think they're God's gift to the country, people like Bruce Haugh. If Bruce haigh had indeed spent 30 years in that service then how come it is still plagued by problems? If I didn't learn in my job over thirty years I'd out on my butt & nothing would work because I'm in a practical field. In bureaucracy & that's all bruce haigh was, a bureaucrat, you can have a career in achieving no posiive outcomes & receive a handsome pension as well.
With countless experts on the taxpayer patroll & still no solution. If those departments were a business they'd be broke in less than a week.

Bruce

I don't need to prove anything to you. I have since 1993 argued more refugee cases than you've had hot dinners, including in the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Federal and Full Federal Courts and recently on Manus Island.

Unlike you, I happen to know what I'm talking about. Hathaways text has been one of my tools of trade for decades, and I know that it's you who’s talking nonsense.

But enough of your attempted diversions and evasions. The point is, you said the government's actions are illegal, I've challenged you to prove it by showing legal authority for that proposition, and you haven't, because you can't, because you're wrong.

All
You can just imagine Bruce and James in the High Court.

Bruce: Good morning your Honours, my name is Haig, I appear for the plaintiffs.
Chief Justice: Yes Mr Haig?
Bruce: This is an application for writs of prohibition, mandamus and certiorari against the Minister for Immigration to prevent them carrying out certain unlawful actions.
CJ: And what is your authority for your proposition that his actions are illegal Mr Haig?
Bruce: "No one has to prove anything to you. You are deliberately being difficult, for the sake of being a smartie pants."
CJ: I see. Is that your main argument Mr Haig?
Bruce: Yes.
CJ: Application dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

Bruce: But wait! Your Honours! I've got another argument.
CJ: Oh yes? What is it?
Bruce: "Do us and yourself a favour, buy and read, "The Law of Refugee Status" by James C. Hathaway. I bet you haven't even heard of it. Once read and digested it you may return to this tutorial, should you persist with your non-sense you are headed for a big F."
CJ: (confers with other judges – sage and pitiful nods all round).
Application dismissed; plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs.

(James O'Neill pipes up.)
James: Yours Honours, perhaps if I could be of some assistance here?
CJ: Yes Mr O'Neill?
James. The issue seems to be what authority there is for the proposition that the defendants' actions are unlawful.