Aboriginal and Indigenous are subjects under a ‘Colorable Sovereign’ that has created colourable ‘Status and ‘Title’ for them since 1901 ‘Aboriginal’. The Citizenship test: court to decide whether Indigenous people can be deported from Australia case now in the High Court applies to ‘Social Engineering’ the video below points out-

Aboriginal Identity is Social Engineering

NATION STATES

We no longer stand in our original Sovereign Birthright Status. So we will only ever be subjects and citizens until we do. The Government is correct in what they are applying in their Social Engineering as you need to be a Citizen to be a resident here. If you are born in another Nation-State you come here with that Nation-State passport. If you want to reside here then you need to become a ‘Colorable’ Subject, Citizen, in ‘Colorable Australia’ and be able to obtain the same Australian Nation-State passport just like other Australian Citizens. If you are a Sovereign born in another COUNTRY, only you and your Sovereign people could stop you and your bloodline from holding a dual STATUS in two different countries.

ARGUMENTS are

(1) Based on our people being Colorable subjects, citizens. E.g Section 51(xix) of the Constitution does not allow the Parliament to treat as an alien a person who cannot answer the description of an alien according to the “ordinary understanding” of that word. The etymology of ‘alien’ indicates belonging to another place: Nolan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1988)(2) And an example of Australia’s fraudulent claim to Sovereignty given by use of Mabo cases I & 2“It says the 1992 Mabo ruling recognised that “the acquisition of sovereignty” by the British gave every person born in Australia between settlement and the mid-1980s the status of a British subject or – later – an Australian citizen, regardless of whether they were Indigenous or not”

INCORRECT

What acquisition of Sovereignty?

The claim is historically false and also in International Law.

HISTORY –

(a) Lord Glenelg, as Secretary of State for the colonies, wrote to the South Australian Colonizing Commission in 1837, aware that the claim of terra nullius, land belonging to no-one, was false:

“An object of very serious importance. This is more especially evident when it is remembered that the Act of Parliament presupposes the existence of a vacant territory and not only recognises the Dominion of the Crown but the proprietary right to the soil of the Commissioners or of those who shall purchase lands from them, in any part of the Territory… Yet if the utmost limits were assumed within which Parliament has sanctioned the erection of the colony it would extend very far into the interior of New Holland and might embrace in its range numerous Tribes of People whose proprietary title to the soil we have not the slightest ground for disputing”

(b) To satisfy the Colonial Office in Britain the South Australian Colonizing Commission agreed to protect our rights:

“Should the Protector of the Aborigines find that the Lands, or any portion of them … are occupied or enjoyed by the Natives, then the lands which may be thus occupied or enjoyed shall not be declared open to public sale, unless the Natives shall surrender their right of occupation or enjoyment, by a voluntary Sale made to the Colonial Commissioner… Should the Natives occupying or enjoying lands … not surrender their right to such land by a voluntary sale, then, in that case, it will be the duty of the Protector of the Aborigines to secure to the Natives the full and undisturbed occupation or enjoyment of their lands and to afford them legal redress against depredators and trespassers.

(c) Pacific Islanders Protection Act of 1875

7. Saving the rights of tribes – Nothing herein or in any such Order in Council contained shall extend or be construed to extend to invest Her Majesty with any claim or title whatsoever to dominion or sovereignty over any such islands or places as aforesaid, or to derogate from the rights of the tribes or people inhabiting such islands and place, or of chiefs or rulers thereof, to such sovereignty or dominion …and a copy shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

So if we Acquiesced our Sovereignty, where is the evidence, the document, treaty?

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Australian citizenship, forced upon us as a result of the 1967 referendum, did not extinguish our sovereignty as has been claimed. We never voted to be incorporated with other Australians. Australian citizenship was imposed upon us.

‘Plenary Power’

Working from the premise that this land was ‘peaceably settled’ and we immediately became British Subjects disregards the fact that we had not been accorded rights or entitlements as ‘British Subjects’ accorded to them by the invaders. In fact, we were deliberately slaughtered and specifically excluded from any such right as enjoyed by a British Subject. Plenary Power assumes the authority to enact and enforce any kind of limitation on us and our rights of property which it deems appropriate but as ‘Colorable’ Citizens. The courts also assume this authority. It is inconsistent with our claim to self-determination and Sovereignty. If Australia imposes restrictions upon us in violation of international law, the restrictions do not change the rights we are entitled to exercise under that international law. i.e. the right to pursue our Sovereign Position. This means no longer accepting the fraudulent ‘COLORS’ like Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, Indigenous,

and what’s the new one? ‘FIRST NATIONS’

WE ARE SOVEREIGN BY BIRTHRIGHT, BLOODLINE STATUS, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.