@Steele & co,

<<For years we have been told that the reason we need to keep asylum seekers [in detention was because ] it takes a long period to determine if they are true refugees>>

Nonsense –it was never a case of *proving* anything.
The majority were never refugees (in the Refugee Convention sense)
What slowed things down was that they had all strangely lost their papers –and all strangely told the same story-- and when some of them did muffed their lines and were rejected they could launch Oz taxpayer funded appeals –until inevitable given the benefit of the doubt .

What we have been told -–for years and years -- is that *TAMILS * were fleeing persecution from the Sinhalese . Now we are getting boats where 37 of the 41 passengers are * ENTHNIC SINHALESE * (and still the advocates are running the same lines –knock, knock chaps!)

Of the 4 Tamils the only one who merited further investigation opted to return home when told he’d have to wait on Manus while they processed his request .

The whole thing reeks of a massive scam—come Steele wake-up to it!

Poirot, SR et al,

While only having a limited legal background, I guess that I am the only person on the forum to have actually read the entire contents of the UNHCR charter. I note that virtually all these legal "experts" have a history as refugee activists, and in this open letter declaring Morrison's actions illegal they are incapable of defining why it is illegal. After a lecture at my son's school several years ago by Julian Burnside, I asked him directly whether the charter applied outside Australian waters, and he admitted that they don't but tried to imply that they should have some precedence.

Having done the reading there are several thing that are crystal clear:

The charter was written specifically to set a framework for the treatment of those refugees that have arrived on one's territory and as such applies only to refugees applying for asylum in Australian. The charter does not apply to what happens in international waters, and the only governing law is the international maritime law.

Maritime law allows the interception of boats under various circumstances especially when they have called for help, and does not define what happens to those intercepted.

Finally, the civilian courts in Australia do not have jurisdiction in international waters, so there is a serious question as to whether the injunction has any weight. I guess we will find out this afternoon.

SM,

"...I guess we will find out this afternoon."

I guess we will.

Again the desperate abc/Greens embarassed that many sent home were not even Tamils as they first suggested. The real shame is on the 'progressives' who encouraged over 1000 deaths and are now so pig headed that they still pretend to be the 'compassionate ' ones. You would think they would hide with shame instead of taking the high 'moral'ground.

So true JBowyer. The lawyers all got their knickers in a knot when it was not one of the old school tie mob who was appointed chief justice here in Queensland, & what a stink.

Could it be some of them missed out on more tax payer money.

Now we can see the truth. There is a hell of a lot more taxpayer money in representing illegals than there is in a couple of judges jobs. More than a few practices are likely to go to the wall, & many lavish lifestyles are going to be lost, without all this taxpayer money going in legal aid to represent a bunch of gate crashers.

Thank god we no longer have those lefty hypocrites in government, who intentionally made border protection fail, to buy the Muslim vote, & bring in more of them.

Lester1, said"Keep the brown skins out. We don't want them, we don't need them. Send 'em back and let 'em terrorise their own countries, not our country.

Scotty's doing a great job. He's an Aussie hero. He's keeping the brown skins out and he deserves a medal."

So, Lester, you don't have any brown or black ancestors like most of us.
Congratulations.