rpg asks:

"So this disaffected element that has believed its own lies .. do you mean the people who now insist we open our borders up and welcome everyone where ever they come from and by whatever means[?]"

The answer is 'yes', inasmuch as such people constitute an articulate elite to whom the 'guilt' of alleged racism has been successfully peddled. I do not suggest such people have constituted the self-perpetuating core of disaffection which is arguably the source of the big lie.

Given that a disaffected element existed in Australia BEFORE the commencement of significant non-British migration to Australia, it perhaps should have been expected that its ability to influence public policy - particularly population policy - should have DECLINED over the years as the proportion of the population of non-British origin increased. Yet if anything it seems that such influence has increased. How is that explained?

I suggest one explanation is that another aspect of the big lie of 'racism' has been peddled to the non-British migrant derived community over the years, that aspect being that full and effective citizenship in Australia can only be attained by changing the British Australian polity from its constitutional monarchy to something else, since 'full and true' acceptance and assimilation into the Australian community is presented as being based upon 'racial' (that is, British) pedigree. That is not to say that all, or even a majority, of that part of the community of non-British origin have accepted this line of bull. There is much to suggest the opposite may be the case. There is also much to suggest that a significant number, although by no means a majority, of the community that is of British origin HAS been taken in by this guilt peddling line.

Such big-lie-based community division was always the purpose of 'multiculturalism'.

Continued presentation of an obligation for Australia to accept 'asylum seekers', especially when numbers are so 'miniscule', is just too good an opportunity for a self-justifying siezure of moral high ground for the elite that has believed the big lie to forego.

Bronwyn,
What style and phrases the ABC uses in of no concern to me. The Immigration Dept refer to 'unlawful entrants'.

My dictionary gives the same meaning to 'unlawful' and 'illegal'. that is good enough for me. I recognise that other softer terms are used simply to put these people in a better light and I will not accept that. Softer terms are simply spin.

Below is an extract from todays SMH. Quote

AN INDONESIAN crewman on a boat that exploded and killed five asylum seekers last month has been charged with people smuggling.

The man, believed to be 19, is accused of attempting to smuggle 47 people into Australia illegally. He was charged with crimes against the Migration Act, not murder.

On April 15, a boat carrying 49 people, mostly Afghans, was intercepted off Australia's northern coast. The following day it caught fire, killing five passengers and severely burning many more.Unquote.

Note the second sentence. "The man, believed to be 19, is accused of attempting to smuggle 47 people into Australia illegally" If the SMH can use the term then so can I.

However, I may change the term I use as I tend to think that Col Rouge's term of 'Illegal Alien' is more apt.

Good example, Banjo. It illustrates my point well. Thank you.

"AN INDONESIAN crewman on a boat that exploded and killed five asylum seekers last month has been charged with people smuggling."

I see the SMH has quite correctly used the term 'asylum seekers', and hasn't referred to them as 'illegals'.

"Note the second sentence. 'The man, believed to be 19, is accused of attempting to smuggle 47 people into Australia illegally.' If the SMH can use the term then so can I."

Smuggling by definition is an illegal activity. The adverb 'illegally' is describing the action of the alleged 'people smuggler', not the actions of those seeking asylum. You'd hardly expect anyone to 'smuggle' anything or anyone 'legally', would you?

Is this the best example you could find, Banjo?

I'm not surprised really, because most journalists in mainstream media have cleaned up their act on this. They've been advised, as have the ABC journos, to get their terminology right.

OLO is an unedited site, so you and Col are free to use whatever hateful and incorrect labels you choose. The longer you continue to do so though, the more your ignorance will be shown up for what it is.

Well I suggest those apologists against Australia's present immigration policy, especially illegal immigrants (those that attempt entry by bi-passing the normal immigration and vetting procedures) or asylum seekers legal or otherwise. Open their own doors and agree to sponsor a family or two. It has been done successfully.

However, it has to be faced, how many families are arriving by
illegal transportation by people smugglers. It's the smugglers that
should be imprisoned and charged. Not the people they're trying to
get in through the back door, without any thought of how they will be
received once they get here! What are they going to do if they land
unobserved? Can you recall the Asian illegals found wandering
around in some isolated area up north, who were saved actually. They had no remorse, they were told by the smugglers that Australia is a big country very unpopulated you can live off the land without any problem. The sad thing is they believed them!

How many of these people are educated, can speak English, are
healthy by Australian standards, and will with little readjustment easily meld into the Australian culture or become employed eventually.

I can't see why some of the wealthier Arab countries can't take
in Muslim asylum seekers, maybe they do?

The Government should make a genuine attempt to educate not only
those in Indonesia that illegal immigrants are not welcome and smugglers should be denounced as criminals in illegal people trafficking.

There is no law in Indonesia against people smuggling. Maybe they
should do this. Although I do believe one has recently been extradited for people smuggling from Indonesia to Australia. And I hope when sentenced, they throw away the key.

Another thought, why doesn't Australia demand from the countries
these people are fleeing from, a huge amount of monies to cope with
the expense of treating these people 'humanely' when they arrive here.

The attempt to use politically correct wording is silly.
They are illegal as they do not have visas and they know that to come
in boats from Indonesia is an illegal entry mode.
If they are so legal why didn't they buy air tickets to Australia
instead of Indonesia ?

Of course they are illegal and it is stupid to pretend otherwise.

As to why it raises so much concern, I have like most of us have seen
the pictures of large ships, 10,000 ton plus packed to the gunnels with
thousands of illegal immigrants arriving in Italian ports.
If the smugglers in Indonesia could build up their business enough that
is what we would be facing in Sydney Harbour.