Fox's solution? All reactive and after the horse has bolted. Open doors and let anyone in, with reserved first places to those illegal immigrants who somehow have the readies to pay criminals $50,000 for a backdoor job and have tossed their papers overboard.

Then close your eyes and put the onus on the police to collar offenders after they have committed a crime serious enough for deportation, which would be be made difficult by the apologists she herself supports and impossible where they have already been given citizenship.

Heads they win and tails they win too. That is according to astroturfing NGOs, lawyers and others who have been making windfall profits (all taxpayer money!) out of so-called 'asylum seekers' - opportunist economic migrants.

Federal Election & Immigration
Immigration will be a Number One issue for voters in the forthcoming federal election and in State elections where Premiers have made commitments without first consulting with the public.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Peter Costello -
gave a speech at the Sydney Institute in which he argued
that freedom and tolerance can be protected only within
a legal framework that is accepted by all.

To be an Australian citizen one pledges
loyalty first to Australia. One pledges to share certain
beliefs - democratic beliefs - to respect the
rights and liberty of others, and to respect the rule of law.

There is a lot of sense in this pledge. Unless we have
a consensus of support about how we will form our
legislature and an agreement to abide by its laws, none of
us will be able to enjoy our rights and liberties without
being threatened by others. We have a compact to live
under a democratic legislature and obey the laws it makes.

In doing this the rights and liberties of all are protected.

The radical Muslim cleric Ben Brika was asked in an
interview on the 7.30 Report, "But don't you think Australian
Muslims - - Muslims living in Australia have a responsibility
to adhere to Australian law?" To which he answered:
"This is a big problem. There are two laws - there is an
Australian law and there is an Islamic law."

No. This is not a big problem. There is one law we are all
expected to abide by. It is the law enacted by Parliament
under the Australian Constitution. If you can't accept
that then you don't accept the fundamentals of what Australia
is and what it stands for.

Our state is a secular state. As such it can protect the
freedom of all religions for worship. Religion instructs
its adherents on faith, morals, and conscience. But there
is not a separate stream of law derived from religious
sources that competes with or
supplants Australian law in
governing our civil society. The source of our law is
the democratically elected legislature.

There are countries that apply religious or sharia law.
Australia is not one of them.

Dear rehctub,

I see that you're buying into all the media hype
concerning the mychts regarding asylum seekers.
Sure some would undoubtedly be economic refugees
most likely the ones coming by plane. But not all.
Sweeping statements and generalisations do not
add credibility to your posts. I'd expect that
from our resident nut-case - OTB, but certainly
not from a professional such as you.

Anyway what you should do - feeling as strongly as you
do - contact your local MP and suggest that Australia
shreds the Refugee agreement agreement that it signed,
ignore Mr Abbott's agreement to take in extra numbers - and
don't worry about our international reputation globally.
We've never cared about that when we had our White Australia
Policy.

No Sharia in Oz?!

Why then is ritual slaughter tolerated? When was the Australian public consulted on that?

As for the authorities intervening to invoke Australian law, that is a joke.

For years federal governments from both sides of politics turned a blind eye to ritual slaughter despite the complaints of farmers and slaughtering works, who all demanded that the law and formal guidelines be applied without exception, which required prior stunning to irreversible unconsciousness and death.

The feds capitulated and ritual slaughter with reduced stunning received the nod, of course. Those medieval religions just HAVE to cut the throat of an animal that is alive and kicking. Independents and small works may still drag the knife across a sheep's throat without any stunning at all.

It is worth adding too that the 'fact-checking'(LOL) ABC and the animal welfare rights groups also turned a blind eye to ritual slaughter occurring in their own backyard while criticising live animal exports to Indonesia. The fact that there was a LNP government at the time was only coincidental one assumes. They didn't need that fudged staged video of an Indonesian works either when there were actual examples at home.

Of course there is introduction of Sharia by increments and by stealth. Political parties do want to win those marginal seats.

Foxy,
I don't know why you referred me to Peter Costello's words. I agree with him on this but it is obvious that the Federal and state Parliaments do not, as they do not enforce the laws they have passed.

If one take his words literally, we would be deporting those who practice FGM and forced underage marriage (for example) and we would prevent further immigration of people from the groups that have demonstrated they hold our laws in contempt. Just as I have been advocating for years. Yet governments turn a blind eye to some alien cultural practices.

Although I agree with Costello, I find it hypocritical as I do not recall him ranting about enforcing our laws when he was a parliamentarian.

The Peter Costello that I know - and I know him and
his wife very well - has always been vocal on this
issue. He firmly believes in a legal framework.
Always has and in a secular state. And as you know
not all thingss that a parliamentarian believes in
gets passed by other parliamentarians.

Why did I refer the post to you - because I felt that
you would understand what Costello was saying.