I do not feel comfortable in the company of those who claim many/most/some are criminals.
I do feel at ease in saying to compare this with our convict past is,well it is silly isn't it?
Laws will be implemented to see judges, a group known to think other than most of us at times, can not change the intentions of government.
But how many have not come in contact very real contact with refugees?
Some streets in some suburbs are no go areas for me or most of you, care to say it is not true?
I understand the humanity of these poor beggars, even the financial refugees status of many if not most of them.
Can we stop pretending we all are unafraid of the implications of less than 1% wanting to change our way of living?
Nice to be nice but not blind, our problems have not yet started.
Boazy, we do not agree but in my lost years of following your dream and your God I found the bloke great, it was followers like you who turned me away.
These folk while a problem are not to be hated as you seem to.

Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 13 November 2010 10:21:25 PM

" ... In the event of an appeal the High Court will determine who will be given refugee status. We can only presume that with due process the applicants will be thoroughly investigated and unsuitable applicants, rejected. ... "

I saw Julian BurnSide

(an individual I admire)

speak about it recently from memory. The issue was that the changes instituted by the clowns in the ALP post the Howard era were considered not to constitute "due process," a principal enshrined in our system of law, and struck down accordingly.

I think it unlikely that many cases will make it to the High court, notwithstanding it has "original jurisdiction" in all matters pertaining to Treaties as defined in the Constitution.

..

Posted by Belly, Sunday, 14 November 2010 8:25:38 PM

" ... Laws will be implemented to see judges, a group known to think other than most of us at times, can not change the intentions of government. ... "

To me, the above statement shows how clueless you are regarding the Judicial system and its processes *Belly* and I refer you to *Lexi's* comments visa vi "the independence" of the Judiciary in the Australian (arguably lopsided) 3 branch system of Guvment - Legislative, Executive and Judiciary.

..

Thereafter, I think it was *King Hazza* who said something to the effect that we should have the right to withdraw from the Treaty. Well, I am reasonably certain that we can, however, there would likely be serious international consequences (entailing exactly what I am not sure) if we did.

Dream On a few questions.
In your opinion are laws in acted on behalf of judges or the Parliament?
Are laws in your view to protect and serve who? Parliament,the Crown or population.
Are those laws crafted for the service of most or the few.
Once law can it be changed.
Your reference in the international laws on refugees,are you sure those laws discriminate against those refugees in favor of those who can afford a boat trip.
Are financial refugees true refugees?
How do you compare those Mexican refugees flooding across American borders, do they have the right to forever challenge that country's rulings?
Dream On are the hundreds of thousands trying to get into Europe in trucks and trains to use those laws unchallenged forever to bankrupt country's with legal bills.

Dreamon, I don't think there would be as big international consequence as people in Australia would have us think;
We could easily conspire with most countries in Europe, along with the USA, to jointly demand a massive reform to the law to render what we do, perfectly legal- as they seem to be following policies in the same vein as ours.

"Who makes the law courts or Parliament"

The parliament makes the laws. The courts administer them. The laws parliament makes must not conflict with the constitution. It is the job of the courts to decide this. The executive cannot interfere in how the courts behave. The excutive has the power to change the laws to address the issues the court has made.

Flo,
Agreed, it is basically how i also understand the process.

The Parlement makes the laws in keeping with the current needs within the boundaries of the constitution. If the legislation is poor or illegal then the courts will find it out. The current case is clear as a breach of the constitution.

So why is there so much out rage with the extremists. Probably because the crude blunt instrument they are trying to employ has been shown for what it is, illegal in a civilised and compassionate society. Fortunately for us our democracy is robust other wise these people would have the constitution over ruled and their opinion imposed as the majority irrelevant of it being only one opinion. Funny how when you place extreme values on any way of life you get the same result.

The claim is always that this is being done against the majority opinion, but if that were true then why did this opinion not get a majority vote. People are confused and tired of being yelled at by the extreme right in this country, they are becoming a risk to stability and democracy by their insistance that any alternative to their view is a risk to our way of life and national security when the they are a threat to the separation of our courts and independence of the constitution with their ideology. The true power lays with the constitution and the separation of power not the loudest and richest lobby group.