Ponde,

It might well be illogical but why is it so?

So tell me David, what's legal about que jumping?

I was of the opinion we as a nation have procedural processes that need to be followed to immigrate here.

Is that fact or fiction?

I say what they are doing by trying to enter via the back door is illegal, if not, what would you call it? Unlawful perhaps!

It's a pretty weak argument if you do.

Dear rehctub,

In order to understand why some people buy into
the myths being spread about asylum seekers for
political use and advantage - perhaps we need
to look at the past in order to understand the
attitudes of some people today:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/11/02/3624658.htm

Dear rehctub,

If one has committed an illegal act charges can be brought and after a trial the person charged can be found guilty. To be the best of my knowledge none of the asylum seekers have been found guilty of anything in an Australian court. Australia has a right to control its borders. However, there is also a right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to cross international borders in search of refuge. To call people illegal who have not been found guilty of any crime violates the presumption of innocence under English common law. The right to seek refuge does not obligate the asylum seeker to stand in any queue.

The US has millions of undocumented aliens within its borders. Some of them have been sent back. However, no one has been interned unless they have been found guilty of a crime other than entering the country undocumented.

The asylum seekers are a source of scare tactics by both Labor and the Libs. By calling them illegal when they have not been found guilty in an Australian court you are participating in the Labor/Lib scare tactic.

//Their aim is to install by default the political system that they want - international socialism.//

I think gay marriage should be legalised. I think that adopting socialism is complete lunacy when there are so many toppled statues in the former U.S.S.R. to attest to the fact that it DOES NOT WORK. Replacing capitalism with socialism would be dangerous idiocy. Allowing gay people to get married seems entirely harmless.

Maybe you are right and as soon as Parliament passes the bill legalising gay marriage all the evil Reds will crawl out from under the beds and wage a bloody revolution against us capitalist dogs. It seems rather unlikely though.

Labor isn't about socialism? Say what?

Is there a Labor leader, including the present one Shorten, who hasn't ridden the socialist wagon, talking up international socialism and setting it as the pinnacle to which Labor should aspire?

Although around a year ago the ever-ambitious Shorten showed his political pragmatism, cynicism too, by declaring that Labor should be more covert about supporting socialism.

While there is some truth in saying, if any are, that the career politicians like Shorten might be supporting socialism for their own short-term benefit, the idealism and political priorities are no different. Shorten plays the Class War card as Julia Gillard did and the dupes follow. If individually they might be millionaires and enjoy the good life that might add deceit and hypocrisy to their CVs.

Shorten is wasting the Parliament's time on SSM as a necessary tactic to stave off an attack from Plibersek and as wedge politics to embarrass Abbott. At the same time the institution of marriage is not well regarded by the leftists (feminists too) who would prefer to trash what they insultingly refer to as 'traditional' marriage.

Regarding the Christian religion, the old lefties would never have been intolerant towards religion. Not that they believed in religion, perish the thought. However, the religious intolerance seen in the modern leftists is not what they would have wanted either. Except where the totalitarian creeds are concerned eg., Islam, which the feckless modern leftists support. Figure that.