Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Tomorrow's landmark High Court trial will test if Constitutional ‘aliens’ power applies to Aboriginal AustraliansAustralian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 2659
- 3 Comments
Tomorrow's landmark High Court trial will test if Constitutional ‘aliens’ power applies to Aboriginal Australians
Tomorrow a landmark trial will be held in the High Court of Australia to determine an important threshold question as to whether Aboriginal Australians can be considered an ‘alien’ under the Constitution and, as a result, be deported following a serious criminal conviction.
The special case is being brought on behalf of Aboriginal Australian men, Daniel Love and Brendan Thoms. It will be argued that both men are Australian nationals because they are Aboriginal people who, although born overseas, are not aliens under the Constitution.
Maurice Blackburn Senior Associate Claire Gibbs, who is acting for Mr Love and Mr Thoms, said the case was important in seeking to make clear that it was unacceptable, under the Constitution, for people who were clearly Australians to be subjected to the alien deportation powers.
“In our view it is morally wrong for the Commonwealth to try to remove our clients from Australia, when it is evident that, on any common sense measure, our clients are Australians,” Ms Gibbs said.
“Our case is directed to showing that it is also unlawful."
“Our clients have a clear Aboriginal lineage, they each have an Aboriginal Australian parent, they have children who are Aboriginal Australians and they went to school and worked in Australia."
Source: High-Court-Trial----Constitutional-aliens-power-applies-to-Aboriginal-Australians.pdf
Comments
-
Monday, 27 May 2019Has there been any updates available on this case yet?
-
Wednesday, 04 December 2019
Australia, New Zealand and PNG are under the CROWN
(Why have they a need for a Visa, ab initio? There is but one Crown.)
All on the land are a subject of (protected or punished at), the Law of the Land. (Under the Crown.)
JURISDICTION
This will be a "stitch up"... The COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is a corporation yet is not a "legal person" (it is not incorporated), at the supreme Ecclesiastical Law.
(It cannot sue and or be sued, under the Crown.)
The HCA is a Constitutional Court. This matter is being "decided" within the jurisdiction of "quasi" Public Law.
Yet, both men through their own (ecclesiastical) "person" are a subject of (can be protected or can only be punished at), the Law of the Land. (The supreme Law that binds the Crown.)
These cases are a "joke", is my opinion. The "Law", is broken. A disruption is imminent.
Here: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/02-Brisbane/b43-2018/Love-Thoms_Pltf_reply_to_further_subs.pdf
The high court of Australia will this week examine a complicated question:
Here: https://tinyurl.com/v7b6bz2
Immigration blog
On my reading of the facts of the case ( caution: the press release) it seems to me that both of these men would have to be Australian citizens by descent or at worst "absorbed persons" under section 34 of the Migration Act 1958.
This would be a best guess but a word of caution we do not know their dates of birth or exactly where they were born as the status of persons born in PNG before independence and after independence in problematic...as to the claim of "aboriginality" that argument will be dynamite. we should all watch this space...