Those arriving by boat from Indonesia or Sri Lanka are illegal.
The government says so. The Immigration Dept describes them so.

Try arriving in a non "Port of Entry" and see what happens.
That they are claiming to be refugees under threat does not change
their status.

It is not politically incorrect to call them illegal.

Antony and individual,
Sorry, been to town. See link to DIAC below.

http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/about/background.htm

Now look up a dictionary, 'unlawfull' means the same as illegal, so they are committing an illegal actby entering Australia without a valid visa. No if or buts about that, we require all non citizens to have a valid visa to enter, it is against our law not to do so. the illegals are breakin out law.

Even the UN says intending refugee must obey a countries laws, they have no right to go wherever they like. Why do you suppose we can, and do, lock them up? Because they are breaking our laws, we do not detain those that enter legally, do we? Those that arrive legally and then apply for asylum are free to go whilst their application is being assesed.

It is getting tiring to have to keep repeating this as the illegals advocate do not seem to be able to comprehend the simple fact.

Last month I had this out with david f

Belly,
Yes I did see and hear exactly what Gina said and the attempted smears by Gillard and Swan. Gina made the point that wages are cheaper in Africa and we should consider our costs here if we want continued mining investment here. Martin Ferguson understood what she said perfectly and agreed.

Gillard and Swan each tried to spin that into Gina advocating Aussies work for $2 a day. What liars they are. We all know our mine workers are very well paid.

By the way, if you wish to check, Bolt has the vids of Gina, Gillard,
Swan and Ferguson all on his blog yesterday.

Gillard is a patholodgical liar, she cannot help herself.

RObert>> Belly, how sure are you that PC actually stops some of those debates? You may need to be more specific as to where PC has stopped freedom of speech on that issue (or most).<<

Belly is correct; we have been manipulated into a scenario where it has become etiquette not to discuss counter arguments to the PC view on the subject.

The forums are open for all viewpoints so the act of stifling an opinion has not yet been enacted,(Remember the threats to the freedom of our press from the Fabians in Canberra only a few months ago.)

Political correctness can only flourish if the public servants are on board, and these public servant positions have been filled by the Fabians regardless of which party is in power.

So it does not matter what we say, we get what they say. So counterpoint discussion is still rife, but it is like piddling into the wind because neither party has the will for common sense.

RObert in regard to the line between fact and interpretation, most politically correct mandates stop verbs, they stop us doing things. I would like the decision on whatever the “PC prohibition” concerns to be put into a percentage. That is: We prohibit this action or interaction because it affects 22% of the population. I know you would find that many of the PC prohibitions would be fractions when talking about effect.

We stop 99.5% of the population doing this because .5% object, but I am free to whinge about it.

I remain convinced the extreme left, and the extremely under informed impose PC on us.
Leave, but we should not have to, boat people and Gina,s view a starving work force is needed for our country,s sake.
Why Ms instead of Miss.
Why do we hide Christian crosses at Christmas.
Why must we focus on the gigantic issues not the every day mundane ones PC intrudes on?
Is truth of value, is free speech, can both be by passed by the need to act PC? YES
How can within the known for century's bounds of decency, speech be not correct.
I am not looking to pillory politicians, on any side.
My firm view those behind PC are in no way Representative of the most, but use this tool to silence us.

belly,
Comon, Gina did not say anything like that, nor imply it. She was talking about the cost of mining here. Just like many of our industries went to Asia, because costs were lower, so mining investment can go elsewhere if our costs get too high. I can get the video links up if you want.

What is your opinion of Martin Fergurson? he had no problem with Gina's words.