HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » High court rules Aborigin...

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 08:34 PM

High court rules Aboriginal Australians are not 'aliens' under the constitution and cannot be deport

High court rules Aboriginal Australians are not 'aliens' under the constitution and cannot be deported

The high court has decided that Aboriginal Australians are not aliens for the purpose of the constitution, a major defeat for the deportation powers of Peter Dutton’s home affairs department and a significant development in the rights of Indigenous Australians.

In a four-to-three split decision on Tuesday the high court ruled that Aboriginal people with sufficient connection to traditional societies cannot be aliens, giving them a special status in Australian constitutional law likely to have ramifications far beyond existing native title law.

The majority of the high court ruled that Brendan Thoms was not an alien and the commonwealth therefore did not have power to order his deportation. The court was not able to decide if the second plaintiff, Daniel Love, was an Aboriginal Australian, requiring a further hearing to establish the facts.

snip

Justices Virginia Bell, Geoffrey Nettle, Michelle Gordon and James Edelman ruled that the tripartite test – established by the landmark Mabo native title cases – can be used to establish biological descent and recognition of indigeneity by a traditional group that puts Indigenous Australians beyond the reach of the aliens power in the constitution.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/11/high-court-rules-aboriginal-australians-are-not-aliens-under-the-constitution-and-cannot-be-deported

on edit
The argument before the Court was whether they had Aboriginal status as they were born outside Australia: New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. They both had one Aboriginal parent. The Court ruled in the first case that it qualified the man as Aboriginal. I am uncertain about the nuances of the second case and why it has been delayed

14 replies, 1069 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply High court rules Aboriginal Australians are not 'aliens' under the constitution and cannot be deport (Original post)
rpannier Feb 2020 OP
Iliyah Feb 2020 #1
jberryhill Feb 2020 #5
treestar Feb 2020 #2
2naSalit Feb 2020 #9
treestar Feb 2020 #13
PoindexterOglethorpe Feb 2020 #3
jberryhill Feb 2020 #4
Piasladic Feb 2020 #7
jberryhill Feb 2020 #8
2naSalit Feb 2020 #10
PoindexterOglethorpe Feb 2020 #12
Walleye Feb 2020 #6
2naSalit Feb 2020 #11
Malmsy Feb 2020 #14

Response to rpannier (Original post)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 08:40 PM

1. WTF

They are indigenous to Australia, thank GOD for the constitution. Damn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 08:57 PM

5. The two people in question were not born in Australia

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rpannier (Original post)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 08:45 PM

2. That sounds the same as in the US where a citizen parent can pass on citizenship

I recall at one time, the indigenous people were not considered citizens. The indigenous artist Albert Namatjira was granted citizenship, so now he could own land, vote, and buy alcohol. Then he got in trouble for sharing alcohol with other indigenous persons, which he did because the culture required sharing with others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 09:38 PM

9. Here we had the Indian Citizenship Act

In 1924. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act


As with all indigenous peoples over run by Europeans, the return of their human rights is still in question though they are allowed a small something about two or three times a century... over the last six centuries. We're still putting kids in cages.

It's still happening in most of the former colonial territories. The bigotry in Australia is much nastier than what we have here, which is already a pretty low low.

One problem in this case is that many indigenous peoples cover areas that often straddle poitical boundaries thta have been established after they already had their own and many were moved elsewhere.

Most of the arguments over sovereignty, citizenship, and locational birthright are dicey at best. I know of tribes that are from the lakes region but they have had issues with Canada and the US over going from one part of their reservation to the other because it straddles the border. One of my in-laws has the same issue with US/Mexico who is a full blooded Native American. Not sure when that one gets solved either. They may be from one homeland that is made up of several countries and sometimes states in the minds of others. That's how I see this situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 11, 2020, 12:10 PM

13. Half the Australian court did the

Right thing. And hope we and Canada or Mexico would also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rpannier (Original post)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 08:48 PM

3. Where the hell would they deport them to?

Their ancestors have been there for some 40,000 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 08:56 PM

4. To where they were born

 

The persons involved in the case were not born in Australia.

One was born in Papua, New Guinea, and the other was born in New Zealand. They are both criminals who were on visas.

After they served their prison terms, they were to be deported to the countries of their birth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 09:10 PM

7. The headline is confusing

I think we both agree that taking the time to actually read the entire article before posting is what we should do.

jberryhill, I know that you sometimes seem a wet blanket to some, but I want to encourage you to keep on fact checking and pointing out problems. I always look for your comments and and am seldom disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piasladic (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 09:19 PM

8. I agree it's a puzzler

 


True to form, the Daily Mail headline, while lurid, is more explanatory...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7989141/amp/High-Court-rules-Aboriginal-people-deported-Australia-majority-4-3-verdict.html

Foreign-born criminals who claim to be Aboriginal win fight to stay in Australia as High Court rules indigenous people CAN'T be deported

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 09:41 PM

10. How unfortunate

that such a gain for the Aboriginals came with such a distasteful case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 09:57 PM

12. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rpannier (Original post)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 09:08 PM

6. I got to hear Bishop Desmond Tutu speak

At a press conference before an awards event where he was being honored. A small man in physical stature, but a moral giant. He had a humorous, but elegant way with words. He talked about the South African government invented the nonsense classification of “Foreign Native”. He let that sink in as the assembled group chuckled. I’ll never forget him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walleye (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 10, 2020, 09:45 PM

11. Oxymoron...

Instantly reminded me of a certain Senator who once claimed that the elk in the state he represented were "domestic wildlife". And he had the gall to use that term during a federal hearing about wildlife who readily and often cross state lines in their daily lives. Should have seen to look on the faces of the sane people in the room.

It's usually a tactical terminology used by those who really don't have a substantive argument. Sound familiar?

Edit: I meant terminology, not that specific oxymoron but any oxymoron used in an argument, especially one used in a legal case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rpannier (Original post)

Tue Feb 11, 2020, 12:13 PM

14. This is a great victory for first nations people there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread