BD: “You are confusing 'responsible government' and management of national security (as the Libs genuinely see it I'm sure) with 'oppression'.”

BD, You may be confusing the issue of the 45 day rule with border control.

I urge you to read the additional text. (Article link: “Seeking safety, Not Charity”)

Ah another bleeding heart – so people who don’t qualify as migrants and don’t qualify as refugees just need to show up on our shores or airports and demand asylum to gain free entry and acceptance to mix with Australians and legal entrants to this commonwealth?

A bridging visa is issued with some serious strings attached – like reporting and like restrictions to employment (we have skills quotas /criteria which apply to every one else who are in queue waiting to migrate).

Right to asylum is not right to employment – and a bridging visa is just that.

I bet the UK are reviewing how “liberal” their migration criteria are following the recent spate of bombings and would be bombings by Somalian / Ethiopian “Refugees” (applicant to choose whichever nationality suits easier acceptance and visa issue).

A Rubbish Article based on fanciful notions of niceness and polite acceptance of every and any potential criminal or terrorist who happens to float / fly ashore – completely ignoring the governments first responsibility - protection of Australians from crimijnals, terrorists and other undesirables.

Part 1

As Author in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® books on CD I have a
considerable understanding what is constitutional appropriate
in certain issues.

See also my book published 30 September 2003,

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

The Delegates of the Constitution Convention Debates made
clear that the Commonwealth of Australia was entitled to
discriminate against any race by legislating within Section 51
(xxvi) against a specific race. However, they also made clear
that once a person was in the Commonwealth of Australia, and
not subjected to disabilities applicable to a special race,
then their rights would be the same as any other “subject of
the British Crown”.

Meaning, that any denial of Medicare benefits or other kind
of denial for employment is unconstitutional!

Quotation Hansard 15-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates;
Mr. GORDON: One is that everyone born in the Commonwealth
is qualified to become an elector.
As such this is yet another indirect referral that any child
born in
the Commonwealth of Australia is an Australian national,
regardless of its parents being aliens’!

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Barton;

If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to
legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth
citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the
Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all
the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and,
in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what
is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament.

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
Commonwealth of 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 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