PART 2

In Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Peters) 99, 120-122 (1830), the question squarely arose as to whether Americans are "subjects of the crown," a proposition
flatly rejected by the Court:
"It is universally admitted both in English courts and in
those of our own country, that all persons born within the
colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of
Great Britain, were natural born British subjects, and it
must necessarily follow that that character was changed by
the separation of the colonies from the parent State, and the
acknowledgment of their independence.
"The rule as to the point of time at which the American
antenati ceased to be British subjects, differs in this
country and in England, as established by the courts of
justice in the respective countries. The English rule is to
take the date of the Treaty of Peace in 1783. Our rule is to
take the date of the Declaration of Independence."

While the US no longer relies upon the English provisions in that regard because of its Declaration of Independence, the Delegates to the Constitution Convention Debates to the contrary did not want to sever ties with the British Crown, and as such again it shows that any person born in the Australia is an Australian native, and cannot be deported as “Stateless” as the Federal government now does with refugee children born in detention centres.

What we need is a total rethink of what really “citizenship” is and how franchise applies.

Ironically, on the one hand a child born in the Commonwealth of Australia by the rulings of the (unconstitutional) Australian Citizenship Act 1948 would be an alien (stateless) while for
election purposes the child, once an adult still could have voting right, unless of course we deny the existence of the child all together, and claim the child was never born!

VIVIAN SOLON never would have been able to be detained, let alone deported if government did apply DUE PROCESS OF LAW, that requires a State Court order to detain/deport a person

There is one way to legally arrive in Australia. Anyone who circumvents that must be an illegal arrival and should be detained. If they don't respect our country, our laws and our people why should we respect them.

Congratulations for changing the attitudes to asylum seekers and detention inmates. Still a way to go but at least the more human consequences of being locked up and displaced is returning to the general consciousness. The political value of creating fear of these people has waned as have wars which made the people asylum seekers.
There is still a need to correct actions of the past. One is the reason for invading Iraq, whose leader as late as 1990 was a favored character in the game of international politics.
The origin lies in colonial history but the trigger point for this episode was the spin of 2002. The memorandum from the British Cabinet July 2002. the Rycroft Memo., reveals the presentation tobe made in touting for war. The origin of course is more complex lying in part in the perceived American Century. However the point is that the UK and USA are shown to collude on war. Plans for the intelligence, later used as Australia's, excuse of misinformation, suited the need for war not the actuality. Since many contacts were made during 2002,the SAS was already prepared for desert war, and Australia was committed under the ANZAS treaty to help, it seems unlikely that Australia was not told at least by July 2002.
Yet we added our minor contribution, disregarding the UN and accepting the deaths that followed. These were largely of another race and terrorists to boot and thus of little human value, at least so seemed to be implied.
This imperial attitude the UN and the passage of time were meant to correct, for ruses for war were common historically.
We under the present parliament and electoral knowledge chose, as we did for contravening our obligations to UHNCR and the UN, to ignore such obligations.
This needs correcting, as does the spin for terrorists who main complaint seems to be the presence of others on their homeland. So says Prof. Robert Pape after analyzing the data on suicide terrorists 1980 to 2005.

I still dont get it. All this fuss about who comes here.

But as true blue Aussie I have my rat cunning to deter as many as I can.

Pass the web address to a few friends overseas and recommended they show it to any one contemplating coming here - a cursory read of some of the jingoistic, rascist and paranoid clap trap that appears in these pages will deter most would be immigrants - legal or otherwise.

Back in the fifties and the sixties we were panicked by the "reds under the bed" scare campaign now some are being duped by the "bombers in the boats". Even if the majority of people agree with detention in its current form it remains an abhorent practice endorsed by moral cowards. It represents the worst excesses of the tyranny of democracy. Most people used to think slavery was cool too.

Some one has got to tell me what are the "values" we all hold near and dear - fariness, honesty, compassion, trust and a respect for the rule of law, the right to protest - come to mind but some how I still feel terribly out of step. How about "do unto others" or something like that. I think some one said that once - a long haired dude, beard, wore a kaftan most of the time and hung around with a bunch of guys who looked much the same. They eventually went to other nations (probably illegally) and repeated what he said and started a bit of movement

Detention is supposed to be a nuetral experience - a bit like a time warp while people are processed and have their bone fides assessed but the Australian experience has it as a prima facie punishment and has been shown to do direct harm to people - most of whom are genuine and in the long run do adopt our values by and large.

That's the way, Sneekeepete. Call anyone who disagrees with you names like "racist". We've been called names by people who lack a proper arguments for so long it doesn't have any effect. Sorry I forgot to sustitute playschool for kindergarten. I'm feel sure that you would have had another go at me if I didn't satisfy you curiosity completely.

QUOTE 15-9-2005
JOHN HOWARD: … my responsibility and my authority extends to the appointment of ministers. I believe that the Minister for Health and Ageing has been an outstanding minister and I have no intention of terminating his commission.
END QUOTE

For so far I am aware of the Constitution provides that the Governor-General appoints and decommission Ministers, not John Howard!
Seems to me Howard is too busy in being a dictator then what is proper in Australia.

Again;
“my responsibility and my authority extends to the appointment of ministers.”

The written Constitution does not even mention a Prime Minister, so where is his claimed powers then? He goes about acting as a Governor-General, but that neither is correct.
The Delegates of the Constitution Convention Debates did intent to have a Prime Minister, but one that was like any other Minister of the Crown answerable to the Governor-General and appointed and having his commission revoked, if applicable by the Governor-General!

As long as we allow this dictator Coward to carry on like this, then we will continue to cause innocent people to suffer. Being it refugees, or others.

One of the posters argue that if they are illegal then they have no rights or cannot provided with any. Well, how do you establish in the first place if a person is illegal? We have a clear example with Vivian Solon that more likely because of her Asian looks she was deported, no matter her ill health!

No matter which side of the political fence you are on, any fair-minded person must have extreme concerns that arbitrary detention/deportation of Australian nationals can occur, with a gross denial of rights merely because someone happens to assume one is “illegal”, even so you may not be so!

As such, Sage may want to have “illegal” denied of their rights, even those who are wrongly assumed to be “illegal” as he does not seem to accept that DUE PROCESS OF LAW is required, not a judge and jury hangman bureaucrat in the Immigration Department!

RESPECT OTHERS THEIR RIGHTS, SO THEY WILL RESPECT OURS