Australia

Australia: Court Crushes “Asylum” Policy Challenge

The High Court of Australia has rejected an attempt by a fake asylum seeker from Bangladesh to declare illegal that country’s offshore invader detention center policy.

high-court-australia

“Human rights” lawyers acting for the invader—who has no claim to asylum under any law, local or international—said the fact that she had been allowed to temporarily enter Australia from an offshore detention center for medical treatment meant that she “deserved the full protection of the Australian constitution.”

Six of the seven High Court judges found against the Bangladeshi invader’s claim, and ordered her to pay the government’s costs. The judges found that the law under which the offshore policy was implemented and managed, was supported by the commonwealth’s constitutional power to make laws regarding “aliens.”

“The detention in custody of an alien, for the purpose of their removal from Australia, did not infringe … the Constitution because the authority, limited to that purpose, was neither punitive in character nor part of the judicial power of the Commonwealth,” Chief Justice Robert French co-wrote with justices Susan Kiefel and Geoffrey Nettle.

The ruling means that that Australian government has a legal right to operate the offshore detention centers on Nauru and Manus Island—a policy which halted the then lucrative people smuggler trade in bringing nonwhites from south Asia by boat to Australia to launch bogus asylum claims.

In reality, none of these “boat people” were fleeing any conflict, and were merely trying to get into Australia to parasite off that white-built society—and to get away from their self-created Second and Third World disaster zones.

READ  Alleged Rapist, Confirmed Hacker, and International Fugitive Assange Starts Australian Party

Until the offshore detention policy was established—whereby the boats were intercepted at sea and the invaders placed in detention centers on Nauru, an island country in Micronesia in the Central Pacific—some 51,000 nonwhites arrived in Australia by sea, demanding to be let in, just as has happened in Europe along the Mediterranean coast.

The Australian government then issued an official and public warning that anyone who tried to enter Australia illegally (by boat or any other method) would not be allowed to settle there under any circumstances.



As soon as this policy was implemented, the nonwhite invasion stopped. Even the leftist opposition Labor Party had to admit that the policy had worked, even if, in their minds, it had only served to save the lives of illegal immigrants drowning at sea.

nauru

The invader detention center in Nauru.

The High Court’s decision has now made it nearly impossible to legally challenge this policy outside of parliament, and its announcement literally reduced the “human rights” lawyers to tears outside the court building.

A group of 267 invaders currently in Australia are now likely to be sent back to Nauru following the High Court ruling.

In the wake of the ruling, Richard Marles, the opposition immigration spokesman, said the government now needed “firmer third-country resettlement options to clear the backlog of asylum-seekers.”

Although the new Australian government appears to be struggling to find a final destination for the invaders in detention at Nauru, it remains a source of mystery why they are simply not sent back to their originating countries.

HTML Editor - Full Version



25 Comments

    1. Just so, Sue and amazingly even their judges are on their side!
      Our jaundiced justice system sees our UK judges weeping faux tears for foreigners regardless, while we go to hell in a handcart .

       
      Reply
    2. But it took 10yrs for the lefties to pull their heads in, as their humane policy actually attracted thousands of boat people. So the emotionally driven bleeding heart left can learn pragmatism. EU could do it also.
      May I suggest instead of invader centres being burned, it would be more expeditious to burn the cars homes and newspaper offices of left wing journalists of controlled media newspapers.. The suffering of a strategic few can work wonders clearing the minds of foggy left wing thinkers.

       
      Reply
    1. Their problem can be sorted out by charging the lefty lawyers with participating in a common plan or conspiracy involving public incitement to commit Crimes Against Peace in particularly inciting the Crime of Aggression. This is set out in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Genocide Convention and Article 6a of the Military Tribunal which met at Nuremberg. The punishment is obviously to be deprived of all their possessions with the exception of their rights of subsistence and that assures tomatoes are on the shelves of the local supermarket. see the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 21/220 Article1.2

       
      Reply
  1. How come she managed to get from Bangladesh to Aus on her own, then says she has rights to enter Aus. Do all these invaders want millions of white Christians to invade their homelands and set up a state within a state, no . The lefties are silent on that one also. Let’s see all these poor countries welcome white Christian immigration.

     
    Reply
    1. We could always arrange for the lefties to emigrate to 3rd world paradise of their own choice. However welfare benefits will not be transferable. Repatriation too would not be permitted.

       
      Reply
  2. Congratulations Australia! You’re a ripper!
    A victory for natural rights and nation, over specious “judeao-human rights”.
    Much admiration from your 4rth & 5th cousins in the Great White North.
    The barbie is still on!

     
    Reply
  3. Quote: “The Australian government then issued an official and public warning that anyone who tried to enter Australia illegally (by boat or any other method) would not be allowed to settle there under any circumstances.
    As soon as this policy was implemented, the nonwhite invasion stopped.”
    Surely this can`t be true ?
    This same solution was decried by EU bureaucrats who claimed it wouldn`t work, and many `refugees` could drown.
    Looks like the EU know-alls were half right !

     
    Reply
    1. “Google” Kalergi to find out why this is happening. The whole thing is being implemented on purpose and it will not stop until the Europeans get rid of the Socialist/ Marxist scum running their countries.
      It would help if police started defying orders to act against indigenous populations!

       
      Reply
    2. The EU people did not consider the implementation seriously enough. It would basically be a newly created country, jobs for bureauocrats employment, service provision, security etc. Notably Turkey is suddenly building 165 new jails and the Canary islands have ajail 10 tines bigger than is necessary. Steve in Sydney

       
      Reply
  4. To all those in Europe, our former Prime Minister Tony Abbott (deposed by his own party) travelled to England to speak to European leaders perhaps a year ago (or thereabouts). He proposed our policies and was shouted down over there and back here in Australia. Our government has tried to get turn-backs and offshore processing recognised in the EU for years without success. And yes, illegal migrants travelling to Aust by boat stopped – almost completely – when this policy was brought in. Our leftie Labor government overturned it years ago and over 120 people drowned and boat after boat came during their term of ‘leading’ our country. These policies work but the WHOLE EU needs to support it. Not just one country.

     
    Reply
    1. That’s quite right and it shows that even emotionally driven lefty politicians can learn to be pragmatic (took 10 yrs)- otherwise known as growing up. They organised off shore processing. Doing a complete turnaround. But obtusely Abbot in opposition prevented the lefty labour government from implementing the idea. of processing facilities in inhospitable places like Thailand and Malaysia but immediately did it himself when he came to power.

       
      Reply
  5. The frontier authorities of both contracting parties shall be instructed to have all vagabonds and other such persons possessing no passport, who are to be re admitted to the territory of the other party, whose subjects they are, conveyed to such points on the frontier as have facilities for sending off travellers. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Final Protocol to Sub-Appendix II To Article XX Part Second Article XIX.
    Also when applying for a passport the home state ensures that any expenses incurred by the State can be collected from their citizens before the issue of a new one. See the application forms for a renewal of a British Passport. See also Part 8 of the Treaty of Versailles
    Then the detention and other costs will be passed on to the Embassy of the subject and arrangements made for their return. When they get home there will be a debt to settled by the traveller.

     
    Reply
  6. This could have been easily implemented for all the European areas,if they had the will, but it was never in the likes of Merkel and her gangs plans because of their agenda to replace the indigenous white Europeans with a non-integrating mono thinking people, loads of sunny Islands that could have been used and if all had cooperated,as Australia has proved stop them arriving and threaten with never being allowed in if attempts to arrive illegally are made and the human traffic will cease, the invasion could have been stopped here years ago.

     
    Reply
  7. EU needs to create its own modern penal colonies like Australia did, completely in its own control, to put fake asylum seekers into, when source nations wont take their rabble people back, Suggestion is Canary islands or perhaps Iceland. Australia pays New Guinea to provide inhospitable nightmare detention, they are fed with rice containing human teeth, bashed and robbed by locals, and don’t have flush toilets, as well as the reputation of cannibalism not far away. Lurid publicity leaks help. ITS A FORMULA THAT WORKS. For 10 years the left wingers forever opposed this under human rights objections but slowly pulled their heads in and went quiet when boat people body counts rose to many hundreds from their “humane” approach. Suddenly to the lefties, the penny dropped, that cruelty to a few people who shouldn’t be here anyway, stops many attempting perilous sea journeys saving many hundreds of lives. Regards Steve in Sydney.

     
    Reply
  8. Introduce Soylent Green on Nauru. Helps to recycle, reuse and keeps the operating cost down.
    Africa never kicked the habit. Remember Idi Amin ? We are always reading about farmers being eaten in South Africa.

     
    Reply
  9. Australia has learned but the human rights lawyers are ONLY oun for the money they can make. I do not believe they are really out to help these vagabonds, but to make more money.
    These SoCal.ed humane people are ill. Maybe they should be o lived too house some of these invaders in their own homes. See what would happen to them. In S.A. They would kill them them off one by one.o

     
    Reply

Post Comment