CIVIL LAW. (Application in context) Bachelor of social work

CIVIL LAW
(Application in context) Bachelor of social work

CIVIL LAW
Introduction
A debate rose across Australia when the high court made a verdict of not deporting the
indigenous people. There were mixed feelings based on the nature of the decision and what it
would imply to the history of the Australian community in general. A primary goal of the
judiciary is to interpret the law and oversee the protection of minority rights in Australia. This
paper analyzes an article by Elizabeth Byrne and Josh Robertson regarding a verdict made
regarding the case of Mr Love and Mr Thoms. Facts, opinions and a reflection on the article will
be presented as well as implications of the verdict made by the high court of the case.
Facts
The court made the decision that the Aboriginal people had a special status in them that
vehemently exempts them from being deported as they are not in any way implicated by the
immigration rules. This was agreed after the court looked into cases of two different convicted
criminals the government was on the verge of deporting (Nethery, Rafferty-Brown, Taylor,
2013). Brendan Thom's and Daniel Love both failed their immigration tests because of
imprisonment.
The decision implicated that the indigenous people were not subject to alien powers. According
to Australian law, an alien is an individual who naturally owes allegiance to another country
based on the virtue that they were born there. Aboriginal Australians have a profound and long-
lasting connection with the community and traditional land (Davis, & Prescott, 2015). However,
they do not belong in their own country. As such, members of the Aboriginal community in
Australia should not be deported. They hold a special status and for that reason are exempted
from migration laws (Galligan, 2017). There is no doubt that the Aboriginal people are not a

CIVIL LAW
subject to the alien powers in the constitution. As a result, they should not be deported because
the Minister does not have the constitutional right. The argument is that it seems contradicting
for the Aboriginals to be considered as strangers in their traditional land.
In most cases, this applies to registered native title holders just like Thomas. The law recognizes
and considers their traditional connection to the land and deporting them will be a violation of
this unique provision (Judd & Butcher, 2016). The traditional connection to the land earns them
the implication and right of belonging.
The decision made by the court on this particular case had a very significant implication to the
Indigenous Australians. It presented a different relationship between the indigenous people and
the state government (Colquhoun & Dockery, 2012). In years to come, this decision will be used
to protect the rights of the Aboriginal people from losing their unique right of identity and
traditional lands just because of a mere birth accident. This decision upheld recognition of the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in the law and their connection to their land
(Grewcock,2017).
In the past decade, there has been an ongoing heated challenge between the State and the
indigenous people. In most of these cases, the issues revolved around the lack of proper legal and
civil recognition. In this case, for instance, Minister categorically failed to consider the
Aboriginality of the men before deciding to deport them. The commonwealth went ahead and
indicated that the men did not belong to Australia, and for that, they were aliens. For this and
many other cases, it is conclusive that the long and strained relationship that exists between the
State and the indigenous people remains unresolved. It is, however, essential to note that the final
decision made in this case will be recognized as a milestone for the indigenous community in
years to come.