From what I understand - the Minister wants people
with criminal records to stay in detention if there
is a possibility that they will offend and have their
cases reviewed every three years.

Surely the laws of the High Court's decision can be
changed? Both the government and the opposition should
work on this matter together instead of finger-pointing.
They should both try to ensure that our communities are
kept safe.

Paul wrote: "Do you agree with indefinite detention at the governments discretion? "

Nothing I wrote would suggest that I'm in favour of "indefinite detention at the governments discretion?". That's something that's done in the sort of regime you support. My post was more about criticising the government's headless-chicken response to the High Court ruling.

While I'm not in favour of endless detention I'm also not in favour of non-citizen criminals being allowed to roam the streets.

What should have been done then and now?
1) The government should not have rushed to release all 148 of these criminals. The High Court's ruling related to one person and they didn't initially release their reasons. The government could have easily said they'd wait for the release of findings before releasing anyone and take that time to address the issues they are now running around like decapitated chooks trying to resolve. But, I suspect, they were initially thrilled with the ruling. They could release the inmates, blame the HC, suffer a day or two of mildly bad publicity and get brownie points from those they really represent - the elitist left.

2) offer these criminals an option - return to your homeland or anywhere else that'll take you OR remain under close supervision. Most asylum seekers who come here claiming to be under threat of death if forced to return home, aren't. Its just something the refugee mafia have taught them to say.

3) Organise for the released criminals to be housed as close as possible to the HC judge's homes. The elite relish the idea of virtual signalling without consequence. The idea is to allow these people to roam the streets of the plebs and then ridicule the plebs for their xenophobia when they object. Let the judges feel a little of the effects of their decision.

Remember, these people aren't citizens. They'll never be citizens. They'll be burden that the community carries forever by virtual of the fact that they ,managed to sneak into the country and convince someone they were genuine asylum seekers. We owe them precisely nothing.

"Blaming the PM or the government is not very productive. "

I wasn't blaming the government for the problem. In fact I specifically blamed all sides. What I do blame the government for is their inept response.

They, and especially the two ministers concerned, are caught between a rock and a hard place. They know that the community don't want these people out and about and they especially don't want them out when they so quickly reoffend. But equally, the refugee mafia, who are the people the ALP really don't want to upset, are determined to use this as a stalking horse for a more liberal refugee regime.

So what to do? Well the government's bright idea is to pass the whole thing off to the courts. That way the government can wash its hands of the issue. That Dutton et al are going along with that shows that they are also in favour of getting the problem out of the political arena asap. No one, ALP, Liberal or Teal wants to be blamed for recidivists sexually assaulting women. Best pass it to the courts.

Again I'm not criticising the PM for the problem, just for his response to the problem. He didn't cause it but he's trying to stay as far out of the spotlight as possible and letting the two hapless ministers carry the can. Pretty much what we've come to expect from him.

"How the heck did these guys get into our country in the first place with their criminal records and were allowed to stay?"

They didn't come with criminal records, they committed their crimes while here. I can't speak for all of them but it seems most came during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd debacle of a government when the borders were, for all intents and purposes, open. They came, were given asylum, committed their crime, were gaoled and now don't want to go home, preferring to live on the taxpayer teat for the rest of their lives. Not a bad gig.

It’s not their criminal past we should worry about, it’s their ideological intend once successfully based here !

mhaze,

I asked you a question, there is nothing you wrote that suggests you oppose it either. But to say outright; "That's something that's done in the sort of regime you (Paul) support" Where's your evidence I support such regimes. For a fella who believed Christ was crucified at Christmas, then blames the birth of a grandchild is well, what can I say. Then a knuckle-dragger would post this nonsense to a complex High Court ruling based on legal argument. "released criminals to be housed as close as possible to the HC judge's homes". Fella, do you talk all of the time out of your backside?

Dear Paul,

Did you know - that his post was about
criticizing the government's response to the
high court ruling. A "chicken response - at that"
And - that's not casting any blame on the
government (sarc.).

How can anyone argue with that logic.