so whats our immigration policy? [Archive]

Cruzi

12th April 2010, 10:00 AM

This institutionalised racism which now dominates our media is sickening to see and the last place I expected to see it was here.

Australia is a nation of immigrants, unless you are are aboriginal, you are the descendant of an immigrant. Never ever forget that.

Whilst our immigration rate may seem higher than the US and UK, we do not have the very large amounts of illegal immigrants that they have, so there is a balance.

Since 1901 30% of the Australian population has been been born overseas, it is not a new thing.

Australia's birth rate has never been a high one, it ranks very low within the world's developed nations.

You need people to pay taxes to cover all the welfare benefits, put more simply there will be far less taxpayers to pay the bills unless something is done. (This fact was identified by the superannuation and insurance industry in the 70's)

You need population growth, no growth means less jobs, (because of productivity gains, less people to do same work), less jobs mean less money, less money means less demand, less demand means less jobs, ad infinitum.

The easiest way to point out how growth is important is your house, it only goes up in value because of population growth, more people need more houses, less people, less needing houses, houses worth less.

And for gawd's sake no room?????, you are kidding, we are one of the lowest capita per sq/km nations in the world.

Waldo

12th April 2010, 10:23 AM

There's a strong argument that the 'boat people' are exactly the type of people we need - they've shown initiative, they're motivated and they've chosen to come here, rather than being here by an accident of birth.

That's a fair comment, hadn't thought of that.

no room?????, you are kidding, we are one of the lowest capita per sq/km nations in the world. Not no room, no infrastructure.

wheelinround

12th April 2010, 10:37 AM

Quite so. Most of our 'illegals' arrive by plane on tourist or other visas, and overstay. If they government was serious, these are the people they would be chasing.

There's a strong argument that the 'boat people' are exactly the type of people we need - they've shown initiative, they're motivated and they've chosen to come here, rather than being here by an accident of birth.

Or does it show they

have enough money to buy their way in
are corrupt enough to try get round or laws and boarder security
So weak they refuse to stand up to their own in their own country

I just got this in an email feel it appropriate

Ray153

12th April 2010, 09:08 PM

Or does it show they

have enough money to buy their way in
are corrupt enough to try get round or laws and boarder security
So weak they refuse to stand up to their own in their own country

I just got this in an email feel it appropriate

Or does it show that they have promised to pay a certain price and end up effectively in slavery paying off the debt?

Or perhaps they are often honourable, ethical people placed in a position of such desperation that such principles such as laws and immigration policies are outweighed by the perceived consequences?

Or does it show that rather than refusal to stand up to others in their own Country, is it more likely that they may have made a considered, rational decision that there is little future in sticking around to argue the point with some thug armed with whatever firearm or other weapon they can get their hands on, often provided in the past by a government of some description with little care or concern what use might be made of that firearm years down the track?

There is also the distinct possibility that those who have the opportunity to arrive by plane with visa in hand, have had the luxury of waiting for often years, in a relatively stable Country with little or no apparent threat to their continued existence.....

We as a sovereign Country have contributed in innumerable ways to the stability or otherwise of every nation from which these people have arrived, we have in my view a moral, ethical and humanitarian obligation to these people and cannot just ignore the problems we have helped create.

wheelinround

12th April 2010, 09:29 PM

Or does it show that they have promised to pay a certain price and end up effectively in slavery paying off the debt?

Or perhaps they are often honourable, ethical people placed in a position of such desperation that such principles such as laws and immigration policies are outweighed by the perceived consequences?

Or does it show that rather than refusal to stand up to others in their own Country, is it more likely that they may have made a considered, rational decision that there is little future in sticking around to argue the point with some thug armed with whatever firearm or other weapon they can get their hands on, often provided in the past by a government of some description with little care or concern what use might be made of that firearm years down the track?

There is also the distinct possibility that those who have the opportunity to arrive by plane with visa in hand, have had the luxury of waiting for often years, in a relatively stable Country with little or no apparent threat to their continued existence.....

We as a sovereign Country have contributed in innumerable ways to the stability or otherwise of every nation from which these people have arrived, we have in my view a moral, ethical and humanitarian obligation to these people and cannot just ignore the problems we have helped create.

Agree there many reasons how they get here or why they come. The problem is with those who don't go through the channels thre is little way of checking their stories or legal status from where they come.

I agree very strongly with Cruzi unless of original origin to this land prior the time of settlement we came from across the waters.

Letting them in, in the numbers we are via the boat loads isn't helping our own situation or infrastructure. The cost to house and detain them is far greater per head than we pay those who are on pensions, they get better fed and looked after.

hughie

12th April 2010, 10:25 PM

...........at the end of the day we should always retain the right to decide who comes to this country, and which nation or nations, ethnicity etc would make the best migrants.

One of the draw backs of boat people seems to be is that its very hard to do any successful checks on their back grounds. And at the end of the day they are illegals who have decided to circumvent the process by arriving on boats navigated toward extreme low population areas.

We may have the lowest population density per sqklm But are we not the driest continent or island and do we not have gaping holes in our present infrastructure?
Its true we need to have more people to broaden the tax paying base. This is required to support the Government and the 5.2 million Baby Boomers who will be retired by 2015.

But then, this was the reason for the baby bonus cash payments and there was a leap in the birth rate. This bonus and its success or failure is being watched by many countries around the world with a similar, if not worse situation.

What concerns me with the current Govt is the policy on the run and ideology that we should throw open the doors to all and sundry. Migration can improve a countries lot.

But we must be able to choose who we want, this is the right of every sovereign nation.

The choice must not be made by others outside of our boarders. As they can hardly be expected to have our best interests at heart.Indeed for the most part I suspect their motives are far from our best interests.

I don't doubt many nations around the world eye the great land mass here and the seemingly low population with envy and perhaps anger as they look at their own problems.

But we have as a nation worked hard and sacrificed much in two world wars and many other skirmishes to maintain the life style and Rule of Law that works. So we must choose who comes and do so with diligence so as to maintain it.

The links below show how such changes can occur with out planning and fore thought. For those who think I am bashing Islam for the sake of it. I am not, its just one clear example of one group of people of another belief structure that is bringing significant change. It can be any largely uncontrolled single group migration to any area, in fact throughout history we can have seen event happen before.

Martin Sobier: France, The First Muslim Country in Western Europe? (http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/04-issue/sobier-4.htm)
Muslim Converts in Germany: Angst-Ridden Germans Look for Answers -- And Find Them in the Koran - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,460364,00.html)

rsser

13th April 2010, 08:40 AM

Let's not forget eg. that most of those on the Tampa were found to be genuine refugees and given that miserable lifeline called Temp Protection Visas.

Also that under the human rights treaties that the nation has signed up to we are obliged to assess refugees; they are not 'illegals' until determined to have no right to stay. I remain disgusted by the practice of jailing men women and children for years until their status can be determined; it makes me ashamed to be an Australian.

I agree that as a nation we should decide on our population size and mix. At the same time let's not forget that post-war we have run one of the biggest and ethnically diverse immigration programs of any nation - on a bi-partisan political basis and with only minor ethnic tensions. The political leadership that made that possible died with One Nation and the Howard govt's adoption of wedge politics based on xenophobia.

Big Shed

13th April 2010, 09:11 AM

Sorry Ern, that sounds rather "revisionist".

I seem to remember that this nation had a White Australia official policy long before One Nation and John Howard came on the scene.

Its' biggest proponent was one Arthur Caldwell, the Labor leader of the time.

Xenophobia has been alive and well in this country, as it has in other countries, for a long time. Just think back to all people of German descent, even those born here, being interred in camps during WWI, all German place names officially being changed. The same thing happened to our Italian citizens. I could go on.

Xenophobia is not confined to one political party, be it One Nation, Liberal or Labor. It is well and truly part of the human condition.

hughie

13th April 2010, 09:40 AM

Also that under the human rights treaties that the nation has signed up to we are obliged to assess refugees; they are not 'illegals' until determined to have no right to stay. I remain disgusted by the practice of jailing men women and children for years until their status can be determined; it makes me ashamed to be an Australian.

regrettably many of these treaties were signed with out the knowledge population at large. I agree we should never ever be guilty of such a practice, if the UN process is failing or is too slow then lets get it fixed. Much of the problem today seems to be a lack of will to take the problem of refugees head on. Everybody feels sorry for them but nobody wants them.

It seems to be a problem of inadequate leadership rather anything else. This falls back on us and how we judge and choose our leaders. A well known author made the point the that we in the west choose our leaders today largely on charisma and not on content of character and integrity as was the custom in th e19th and early 20th centuries.

I agree that as a nation we should decide on our population size and mix. At the same time let's not forget that post-war we have run one of the biggest and ethnically diverse immigration programs of any nation - on a bi-partisan political basis and with only minor ethnic tensions.

But it was what we chose at the time rightly or wrong, much of the situation today is foisted upon us by outsiders and any decision other than what they want is frowned upon to say the least.

damian

13th April 2010, 10:05 AM

Cruzi: As soon as you play the racism card I stop reading. If you want a debate discuss the issue don't attack the person.

There are 4 seperate issues here: Immigration totals, criteria, refugees in general and those arriving illegally.

1. Immigration totals. Australia is within 330 sq miles of the contigious 48 states of the USA. They support about 300 million people, but they also have fertile soils and fresh water.

We are already overtaxing what fresh water we have and I doubt any of you are going to argue that desalination is a good solution in a world where energy is only becomming more expensive. No doubt some of you have bought the recycling propoganda. Before you point out that human waste approximates the stuff alreading in our rivers and dams take a look at the waste from the factories, hospitals and other stuff that gets dumped in our sewers and take a good long look at the treatment of that water prior to it recycling.

Australia, coincidentally, was covered in rish forests 40,000 years ago. We also had a lot more fauna. I am not a botanist nor an anthropologist, but one or two people more knowledgeable than me ahve suggested that if white man haddn't arrived the aboriginies would have burned the desert right out to the coast by now. Regardless who is to blame the fact is even if the hippie greeny socialist scum would allow building dams in the north, no one wants to live there.

I am yet to see an example anywhere in the world where increased population density lead to an increase in quality of life.

2. Criteria. Personally I think the immigration dept has this about right. I believe the totals should be parity, 30,000 leave 30,000 get in.

3. Refugees. Personally I think it would be better for all concerned if the west took a more proactive role in fixing the problems in these peoples home countries rather than exporting the victims of their problems. Unfortunately the political reality is that unless they have a religeous, political or economic value to someone in power they are left to rot.

4. Illegal arrivals: I am expected to obey the law, and am not rewarded for breaking it. I am bewildered that people who arrive illegally are given legal aid and the right to appeal for years on end if they disagree with MY governments decision. They are not tax payers here, citizens. IMO they should be kept or repatriated at the discretion of the minister with no avenue of appeal.

Finally, I am not an immigrant. My ancestors were born here 6 generations back. I have no where else to go, no divided loyalties and I resent being labelled an invader and not entitled to an opinion. I am a native Australian. My ancestors died defending this country. If you feel I am less entitled than others, well I can't type here what I think of you.

Waldo

13th April 2010, 10:32 AM

Once again Damian, exactly :whs:

jimbur

13th April 2010, 10:34 AM

Ern made an excellent point about Howard and his use of wedge politics.
Much of the present furore is not about a few extra boats coming here but the need for Abbott to find some leverage for his attempt to become prime minister. Unfortunately the media are far more interested in sensationalism than in analysis. Wrap an argument in lycra and it seems to get an airing which I believe it does not deserve.
For goodness sake these are people we are talking about and we are meant to be Australians interested in a fair go.
To see life working, go along to a market like Wantirna on a Sunday morning. People can and do get along despite name calling on the way to assimilation. Older ones among us will remember the use of "reffos", "wogs" etc. Life changed and changed for the better. Look at the food - who'd want to go back to boiled cabbage:U
Anyway there's my two bob worth,
Jim

rsser

13th April 2010, 11:08 AM

Waldo

13th April 2010, 11:11 AM

I don't think racism comes into this at all. It's the process by how it is done and controlling how we do it. A link was given to debate on how England has been down this road before, and so far as I understand it watching the likes of Lateline as to how they are trying fix the problem.

Big Shed

13th April 2010, 11:35 AM

Fred, we ditched the White Aus policy, and in the 70s we accepted boatloads of refugees from Vietnam. The linkage between political leadership, public acceptance and media narratives was v. diff then. I'm not saying there was a golden age where no racism existed and the political parties all agreed on immigration/refugee policy. I am saying that it was a very bad turn in this country to have traded for political advantage on xenophobia. Labor and Liberal, if they had cooperated, could have squeezed the political oxygen out of the One Nation agenda.

From where I am sitting there appears to be little or no difference between Labor and Liberal on illegal immigration. Rudd made a lot of noise during the election about treating illegal immigrants "humanely" (whatever that means) and getting rid of the "Pacific solution".

The reality is somewhat different, as it always is when you have to convert rhetoric in to reality when you actually have your hands on the wheel.

So instead of a "Pacific solution" we now have a "Indonesia solution", instead of a Tamp we now have a Oceanic Viking, we have more boats arriving, instead of closing the hated Christmas Island we now will have to extend it as illegal immigrants wil not be processed for 3 or 6 months.

Actions speak louder than words and Rudd's actions do not match his words.

I agree with the previous posters, we should decide who comes here, it should not be decided by a bunch of people smugglers.

I have nothing against accepting people from Iraq, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, as we have accepted people from diverse places. But we should be in control of that process.

Perhaps we should cut out the middle man and set up a processing station in Indonesia and sell places on the next cruise ship leaving for Australia. It would cut out a lot of intermediaries and allow the Navy to do something useful rather than be collectors of illegal immigrants.

Waldo

13th April 2010, 11:37 AM

:aro-u: :yes:

damian

13th April 2010, 12:00 PM

Fred, we ditched the White Aus policy, and in the 70s we accepted boatloads of refugees from Vietnam. The linkage between political leadership, public acceptance and media narratives was v. diff then. I'm not saying there was a golden age where no racism existed and the political parties all agreed on immigration/refugee policy. I am saying that it was a very bad turn in this country to have traded for political advantage on xenophobia. Labor and Liberal, if they had cooperated, could have squeezed the political oxygen out of the One Nation agenda.

I am not entirely sure what your saying here. I remember the "boat people" thing well. Fraser was pushing for more acceptance of the vietnamese and most australians were against it. I might mention I am not overly concerned about where immigrants come from, merely the numbers.

One nation, or specifically Pauline Hanson, stood up and said what a lot of Australians were thinking. Labour and Coalition closed ranks sensing a threat to their comfortable dualopoly. I looked on in despair as they launched personal attack after slur, and never once gave an intelligent answer to any issue they raised. You are entitled to disagree with me, but I and every other australian is also entitled to an opinion and to express it peacefully. This is what Ms Hanson did, and she was persecuted for her trouble.

The thing is we live in a democracy, and while I happily acknowledge it is an inefficient and deeply flawed system you I and everyone here benifites from it more than we suffer. One thing you have to accept is that if the majority do not feel as you do, despite your best efforts to swing them, you have to accept the outcome. Xenophobia is talked about as if it is universally a bad thing. That is not a foregone conclusion. If the nation is xenophobic then the nations policies should reflect that. I am constantly bewildered that our politicians presume we are celver enough to pick them to govern every 3 years yet not clever enough to have a say in between times. Of course I do _not_ reject the popular democracy, written off by the acedemics, in favour of representative democracy. Just because Athens failed doesn't mean it was the systems fault.

A very many Australians accept things I see as disgusting. I continue to "help them see the light", but accept that as I fail I have to live with their opinions and the result.

I will defend with my dying breath your right to your opinion, and fight you till my dying breath if you try to force it on me.:D

rsser

13th April 2010, 01:18 PM

Racism most folk agree is not a good thing; on the other hand racist attitudes are common.

Not a good thing because our 'better selves' say treat a person on his or her merits and not on the basis of race, sex, belief, creed, ethnicity etc. In practice we often do.

I take a Burkeian view of political leadership; I expect political leaders to lead and make the most of our better selves and not merely follow popular attitudes or ditch principles for the sake of electoral advantage.

My previous posts Fred should indicate that on these issues I don't carry a candle for Labor.

We have anti-discrimination legislation in this country. The Howard govt legislated an exemption from this for the purposes of the NT 'intervention', ie. to allow race-based policy and administration. Labor has not repealed this and is now proposing race-based discrimination against refugees.

State sanctioned racism is a very slippery slope as many Jewish members of our community will attest.

Big Shed

13th April 2010, 03:08 PM

I think we are getting a bit off topic here.

Ern, like you I abhor racism in all its' forms, there is no place for it in a civilised society. I have seen first hand the effect of extreme racism and I would hate to see that happen here.

I don't think I either implied or said straight out that you "carried a candle for Labor". I don't really care whether you do or don't I merely contrasted the 2 approaches, Rudd vs Howard, and what Rudd promised and (not) delivered.

Rudd is long on rhetoric and (very) short on actually doing something and that isn't only with regard to illegal immigration. This country is no better served by Rudd's approach than it was by Howards', however all the Howard haters can't see anything wrong with whatever Rudd does. Like Howard, Rudd is driven by opinion polls and "develops" policy based on whatever the latest opinion polls tel him. The latest back flip with the 3-6 month delayed processing is a perfect example of this. If Howard had done that, Labor supporters would have gone ballistic, now they merely shake their head and say that they disapprove.

Rudd has tried to transfer the problem to Indonesia, as Howard did to the Pacific nations, at least Howard was open about it.

With regard to the NT intervention, I won't comment, I will only say that it had bi-partisan support and to this day Jenny Macklin is one of its' strongest supporters.

damian

14th April 2010, 11:15 AM

I take a Burkeian view of political leadership; I expect political leaders to lead and make the most of our better selves and not merely follow popular attitudes or ditch principles for the sake of electoral advantage.

That never happens in practise. I despised Howard for taking our guns off us, making tertiary education more expensive, introducing the GST that sent so many of my friends businesses out the door, but I give credit where it's due. He at least had some principles he was willing to stick to, and they managed the economy better than Hawke or Rudd have (or Whitlam for that matter).

Rudd is totally without principles. He is the ultimate "hollow man", ambitious, but for no reason only the love of power and self importance. He is like Keeting without the (obvious) arrogance.

I suppose I am more anti labour than most, having dealt with what they have done to Queensland over the last 12 years. I am no fan of the coalition, but I will vote for them at a pinch. I've never voted labour, not because I'm anti-socialist but because they are. They have utterly betrayed their core constituants for political ends and to serve their rampant corruption.

Anyway, this isn't about the political parties, nor really was it about racism. As I said before I have no issue with the ethnic mix of the immigrants, provided proper background checks are done. I grew up in Sydney, in a most ethnically diverse area. I've seen the worst and best of it. I very simply resist immigration, I see no upside to it. I resist incentives for people to breed also, while not at all advocating trying to stop them. I continue to believe Australia's population should be 13 million.

It is worth noting that property developers are major contributors to both parties coffers. A clue to their policies might lurk there.

Master Splinter

14th April 2010, 09:55 PM

I don't have a particular problem with immigrants, just the ones who bring their petty (but decades old, violent and bloody) feuds with them. If they want to continue their historical tit for tat hostilities against (insert racial/ethnic/religious/tribal group that 'done 'em wrong' here), they can take their bat and ball and go home.

I'm also a bit wary of refugees who manage to completely miss many safer landfalls in less economically desirable locations like India/Indonesia/Singapore/Malaysia and end up on our shores, sans any documentation or proof of their story - for these, I actually like Senator Fielding's idea of doing a two for one deal with one of the nations they didn't quite make it to...we'd repatriate the however-many undocumented people there are on Christmas Island to the nearest safe country from their point of origin, and take double their number in patiently waiting refugees from that country's refugee camps.

Labor/Liberal wise, I've always thought of Labor as honestly dishonest and the Liberals as dishonestly dishonest - if Labor ministers change or ignore their department's advice, they tend to carry the can for it, while the Liberal approach was to shove it back on the department and try to deny involvement.

corbs

17th April 2010, 10:09 AM

I do not have an issue with refugees seeking asylum in Australia, but the issue with them coming by boat is a security and quarantine threat. Aside from not knowing who is on the boats, we have no idea what is on the boats. Jamia Islamia is a very well organised group in Indonesia and there are very real risks in allowing the boats to continue.

We are lucky in Australia that our isolation in relation to other countries helps protect us but I think it also makes us complacent. There are very real security risks in people coming to Australia by boat and I cannot understand why one of the major political parties doesn't use this as their justification for condemning boat people. As soon as the issue ceases to be the people and becomes the method (and potential consequences) then all the tree hugging, right to life civil libertarians will have to support that party. If they don't then they will be arguing against a party that is in effect, agreeing with them.

I haven't seen it mentioned in here but I read somewhere that around 80-90% of boat people are approved as refugees, whilst 60-70% of fly ins are approved. The majority of boat people are legitimate refugees but we have to control their method.

Sebastiaan56

17th April 2010, 12:55 PM

I haven't seen it mentioned in here but I read somewhere that around 80-90% of boat people are approved as refugees, whilst 60-70% of fly ins are approved. The majority of boat people are legitimate refugees but we have to control their method.

The real point. I heard 93%. These people are fleeing states where despots rule, where your surname and family history mark you out for persecution and where their children will have no future.

I had a Vietnamese lady working for me in the 80's. She was perpetually derided by her Aussie colleagues for taking any overtime offered. It was well known that she had a second job and casual work in a couple of local restaurants. About 18 months after I met her she announced that she had finally raised the money to get her husband out of Vietnam, over AUD80k in bribes had to be paid to the communists to get his release. He duly arrived and I employed him as well. There were scars from torture on his arms and legs that he never wanted to talk about. She was originally a boat person. Damn I was proud to know them.

These are people we are discussing here folks. Human beings. The same as you and me with the same hopes aspirations and needs. We dont know what it is like to live under terror and brutality. To live in constant fear of the police and military, to be summarily executed or maimed, to live without running water, sewerage or basic healthcare. These people are fleeing for their lives. It would be great to help them in their home countries but the baying and carry on about our -ant foreign aid budget is pathetic. Our pollies dont have the b@lls, none of them.

As for our political leaders, 1.2 million people immigrated to Australia under Howard and it was Whitlam who first used the phrase "we will determine who comes to Australia and the manner of their coming". So no "L" party has my endorsement on these issues. They are pandering to the populist press and the next election cycle. They are not to be trusted.

Finally, Im a reffo, my parents fled Holland in the 50's due to economic conditions and were assisted by the Australian government. For better or for worse I employ a fifth generation Aussie, a third Generation Aussie, A Russian immigrant and a Hong Kong immigrant. My business is in a suburb where there over 130 languages spoken. I dont fear people because they look or sound different to me. There are people who shouldnt be allowed to settle here, fundamentalists, racists, userers and those with violent and abusive histories. Boat people statistically dont belong in those categories.

end of dummy spit....

jimbur

17th April 2010, 01:45 PM

Thanks Sebastian, I agree entirely.

I find it very difficult not to lose my temper on this subject so I've kept out of it in the main. Part of my job used to entail visiting residences where the people had tattoos on their wrists. These were the survivors. Remember the Jews in Europe were turned away from frontiers in the same way as those seeking refuge today.
When ideology gets ahead of humanity we need to take a close look at ourselves and the world around us.
Jim

rodmy

17th April 2010, 06:33 PM

Hear hear Sabastiaan56. Well said.

hughie

18th April 2010, 06:25 PM

A shambles, are we doing these people a dis-service?

Curtin detention plan a 'chaotic policy' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/18/2875891.htm?section=justin)

Waldo

18th April 2010, 11:12 PM

It's not my issue the people coming or their ethnic race, I couldn't care if they're black, blue or green with pink spots. It's how we 'process' them etc.

I am in no way racist.

ToothFairy

19th April 2010, 01:37 PM

I do not have an issue with refugees seeking asylum in Australia, but the issue with them coming by boat is a security and quarantine threat. Aside from not knowing who is on the boats, we have no idea what is on the boats. Jamia Islamia is a very well organised group in Indonesia and there are very real risks in allowing the boats to continue. [snip] <snip>
I haven't seen it mentioned in here but I read somewhere that around 80-90% of boat people are approved as refugees, whilst 60-70% of fly ins are approved. The majority of boat people are legitimate refugees but we have to control their method.

We need to remember that terrorists have spare funds and fake passports. They don't want to risk their lives in leaky boats when they can take out a whole jetliner. The chances of serious problems in these boatloads is not great.

- Michael</snip>

hughie

19th April 2010, 01:53 PM

We need to remember that terrorists have spare funds and fake passports. They don't want to risk their lives in leaky boats when they can take out a whole jetliner. The chances of serious problems in these boatloads is not great.

But many supporters do arrive on these boats and they do provide financial help for the 'cause back home' some thing that does not sit well with most folks

wheelinround

19th April 2010, 02:08 PM

Lets look at this another way if your a large major corperation who owns and runs detention centres and they are sitting idle and they don't have any support from the local government what would you be doing?? :roll:

rodmy

19th April 2010, 02:36 PM

But many supporters do arrive on these boats and they do provide financial help for the 'cause back home' some thing that does not sit well with most folks

hughie, this is most alarming news. I never realised this was the case. :oo:

Had a quick look on Gurgle, zip. Could you help out with some links and supporting evidence. Many thanks.

damian

19th April 2010, 02:41 PM

Once again you bring it back to racism. Ok, call me racist, I don't care.

The fact is this isn't about race, it's about australian citizens having an opinion about our population, our immigration policy and our future. Take your racism angle away and you have no argument, because I have a right to disagree with you and I can make a viable case.

Get as angry as you like, goodeness knows I do about all sorts of things I percieve as wrong in our society, but calling me names isn't going to make me care how you feel. There is a signifigant sector of our population that is against immigration and against increased population. We will continue to make our case.

I now return you to your tantrum...:)

corbs

19th April 2010, 10:10 PM

We need to remember that terrorists have spare funds and fake passports. They don't want to risk their lives in leaky boats when they can take out a whole jetliner. The chances of serious problems in these boatloads is not great.

- Michael

A few people that want to do harm can pack a lot of equipment in a small leaky boat to do that harm. Explosives are pretty well controlled and monitored in Australia but if you can source and transport them from offshore then the ability to do that damage is significant.

I have absolutely no issue with legitimate refugees seeking asylum in Australia and we should do everything we can to assist them. But if the means of their arrival in Australia presents a security risk to those already here then there should be serious restrictions on that method of travel.

yashinskiy

19th April 2010, 10:58 PM

Just would like to add some of my personal experience to the heated discussion.
I am Russian, landed in Brisbane 8 years ago, did all kinds of stuff including studying at uni, meeting my wife (Mexican), bringing two kids into the world (third one due in July), finishing cabinet making course, starting my own custom furniture company and some other bits and pieces. We applied for permanent residency in November 2008 in January 09 there were an introduction of new rules including Critical Skills List and as of March all the trades were taken off the critical list retrospectively affecting our application. We have been on Bridging visa A ever since. Recently I've received a letter which stated that our application most probably won't be picked up until the end of 2012. If the outcome is negative we will have 28 days to leave the country. My local MP is mr Rudd. and apparently there is nothing that can be done. My letter to the immigration minister was entitled: "What kind of citizen do you need?". In the letter I simply asked for someone to have a look at our application and if the answer is no, we will simply move on. There is nothing worse than being suspended like that. You can stay but you cannot live. That's why so many people leave. From my perspective sometimes it looks like a set up. Australia is heavily promoted overseas as a country to come and live the dream life. So many people come in, get handed over a booklet with instructions: study this, pay this, fill this in, pay that, do this test, pay here and then you are an Australian!!! and every couple of years there is a change which pushes
you three steps back. An average student brings into economy: $20,000 (two year course fee minimum)+$20,000(per year living expenses) + immigration fees + taxes etc. I am up to $210,000. I don't want a badge of recognition. This is the best country in the world and all the effort worth it, but what else one must do??? We have explored every avenue. I have three choices in front of me: 1) going to Canada. 2) Going to Hague international court of Justice 3) Setting up a tent by the immigration building in brisbane with my kids and pregnant wife. If anyone has other ideas I am all ears.

I might be off topic, but i think some real life facts on any issue are useful.

Alexander

hughie

20th April 2010, 01:21 AM

I might be off topic, but i think some real life facts on any issue are useful.

Alexander

Nah and as the originator of this little discussion its a fair comment.:2tsup:

The bureaucratic heifer dust that wanders around the immigration dept and the fees charged are reminiscent of a wounded bull. I have had a fair bit of experience with said immigration dept and in many circumstances I would not feed them. :~

I would not like to be in your position for quids. But heres a suggestion that might be useful. Have you considered NZ? as a possible place to go to. Theres a lot going for it and its a close neighbour that enjoys no visa requirements for its citizen to come to this country and it has a 2 year residency requirement to obtain citizenship.:U

A its warmer than Canada, cheaper to get to and you get more for your dollar there.

all the best

hughie

20th April 2010, 01:35 AM

Had a quick look on Gurgle, zip. Could you help out with some links and supporting evidence. Many thanks.

You wont find much evidence on Google. But as I move around in different circles and have spent much time in Asia. These are personal observations of collections done at private parties and functions etc.

But here is a selection of sites on our most recent group of visitors.I have not singled them out in particular but simple have used them as they are our newest lot of people who gain support from with in Australia.

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Terrorist Group of Sri Lanka (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/shrilanka/terroristoutfits/LTTE.HTM)

No jail for Australians who helped Tamil Tigers - Yahoo! Singapore News (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20100331/tap-as-australia-tamil-tigers-79704af.html)

Commentary #77 (http://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/com77e.htm)

Black Cat

20th April 2010, 07:49 AM

Also no resources. Most of our capital cities are running out of water. That can not be fixed with infrastructure. Most of our arable land is disappearing under houses. That means we will be dependent on external food supplies. Working out the carrying capacity of the land is an essential exercise for any farmer. And we have not worked out the carrying capacity of our country. Once you work that out, you realise that bringing in more people - or breeding too many home-grown specimens - will lead to a lowering of living standards for all of us.

Getting serious about sorting out an economy that is not dependent on exponential growth is becoming a critical issue for all of us. As you say - time to get serious about the real issues.

Sebastiaan56

20th April 2010, 08:10 AM

What, immigrants sending money back to their parents in the home country... well I never...

Not all Tamils are terrorists in the same way that not all Australians are Labour supporters. That said the Tamil Tigers have been carrying out terror activities in Sri Lanka for over 20 years and pretty well invented suicide bombing. The leadership are seriously unpleasant people who lost sight of their original cause. My understanding is that they bully and intimidate their own people as much as they attempted to create their own state. Its probably a good thing that they didnt succeed. Tamils are the ethnic minority and have for decades been subject to discrimination. They were originally brought to Sri Lanka by the British to work in the sugar plantations. When the empire fell apart India wouldnt take them back and Sri Lanka didnt want them. They were stuck. Unlike the Palestinians who were the traditional owners of the land they are displaced. I think it would be a tough call to be born a Tamil in Sri Lanka.

Given the boats and condition these people travel in Corbs I reckon it would be hard to smuggle any explosives. Remember that most of them have rotted in displacement camps for years before attempting the boat crossing to Aus. My understanding is that most arrive with the clothes on their backs. If they did pack heat the detention centres would have been destroyed by now. There are also extensive health and background checks. I think a much bigger threat is home grown terrorists such as those being trained in the mosques in our capital cities.

Alexander, when I logged in this morning there were banners promoting visas for USA and Canada. New Zealand is also a very nice place. Our Immigration Department is ideologically driven to keep people out even if they are valuable citizen material. It is a deeply held belief that goes back to the cleansings of natives peoples in the 19th century. It sucks, keep us posted of your progress. Appeals to Ministers etc have worked in the past.

I completely agree that the immigration debate is useless without a population policy. But an Australian population policy will be completely useless without a regional or worldwide population strategy. Imagine the attraction of a sparsely populated Australia to Asia bulging at the seams with people. From what I understand improving living standards and education reduce population growth. Thats where the effort and aid money should be spent IMO.

Big Shed

20th April 2010, 10:23 AM

Not all Tamils are terrorists in the same way that not all Australians are Labour supporters. That said the Tamil Tigers have been carrying out terror activities in Sri Lanka for over 20 years and pretty well invented suicide bombing. The leadership are seriously unpleasant people who lost sight of their original cause. My understanding is that they bully and intimidate their own people as much as they attempted to create their own state. Its probably a good thing that they didnt succeed. Tamils are the ethnic minority and have for decades been subject to discrimination. They were originally brought to Sri Lanka by the British to work in the sugar plantations. When the empire fell apart India wouldnt take them back and Sri Lanka didnt want them. They were stuck. Unlike the Palestinians who were the traditional owners of the land they are displaced. I think it would be a tough call to be born a Tamil in Sri Lanka.

Sebastiaan, what you say there is only partly correct. According to Wikipedia there are 2 different Tamil groups in Sri Lanka:

Tamils are concentrated in the North, East, Central and Western provinces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Province,_Sri_Lanka) of the country. Sri Lankan Tamils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamils) are the second major ethnic group on the island and have called it home for generations. Indian Tamils who were brought as indentured labourers from India by British colonists to work on estate plantations, nearly 50% of whom were repatriated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation) following independence in 1948,[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#cite_note-44)[page needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)] are called "Indian Origin" Tamils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Tamils_of_Sri_Lanka). They are distinguished from the native Tamil population that has resided in Sri Lanka since ancient times.
According to 2001 census data Indian Tamils makeup 5.1% of the Sri Lankan population and, Sri Lankan Tamils 4.3% but this figure only accounted for Sri Lankan Tamils in government-controlled areas, not accounting for those in rebel-held territories. The World Factbook states that Sri Lankan Tamils make up 14% of the population. There is a significant population (8.0%) of Moors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Moors), who trace their lineage to Arab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab) traders and immigrants from the Middle East. Their presence is concentrated in the cities and the central and eastern provinces. There are also small ethnic groups such as the Burghers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgher_people) (of mixed European descent) and Malays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_race) from Southeast Asia.

This is yet another of the legacies left behind by our rapacious British cousins and their empire. Another one is of course Iraq and let's not forget Afghanistan. It is no coincidence therefore that these are the countries where most of our illigal immigrants are arriving from. A previous wave arrived from Vietnam, a legacy of the French colonialists.

If we added up the potential number of illegal immigrants from Sri Lanka, Iraq and Afghanistan and opened our doors to all of them, as you appear to be advocating, they would add quite substantially to our population and change our culture and way of life dramatically, not to mention the fact that we would have a problem in finding jobs for them, and our infrastructure would collapse under the pressure.

It is one thing to be "touchy feely", but we also need to look at the practicalities of this problem.

There is no country in the world that throws open their borders to any disaffected citizens of other countries, not even the Scandinavian countries.

The reason our Immigration Dept is not as soft a touch as some people would like is that if they were people would only have to actually arrive here, eg on a visitors visa, and then just apply for permanent residency. If that was the case any airline flying to Australia would be doing a roaring business.

Even NZ is not as soft a touch as some people seem to indicate, the UK are probably tougher than most (even though they caused most of these problems in the first place!), the Scandinavian countries still deport unsuccessful applicants (but will alow them to live in the community whilst they go through the process).

We need to consider the long term effects of relaxing our rules of entry and what effect this will have on arrivals, something Rudd didn't do and is now paying the price for.

Sebastiaan56

20th April 2010, 10:50 AM

Sebastiaan, what you say there is only partly correct. According to Wikipedia there are 2 different Tamil groups in Sri Lanka:

Tamils are concentrated in the North, East, Central and Western provinces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Province,_Sri_Lanka) of the country. Sri Lankan Tamils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Tamils) are the second major ethnic group on the island and have called it home for generations. Indian Tamils who were brought as indentured labourers from India by British colonists to work on estate plantations, nearly 50% of whom were repatriated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation) following independence in 1948,[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#cite_note-44)[page needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources)] are called "Indian Origin" Tamils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Tamils_of_Sri_Lanka). They are distinguished from the native Tamil population that has resided in Sri Lanka since ancient times.
According to 2001 census data Indian Tamils makeup 5.1% of the Sri Lankan population and, Sri Lankan Tamils 4.3% but this figure only accounted for Sri Lankan Tamils in government-controlled areas, not accounting for those in rebel-held territories. The World Factbook states that Sri Lankan Tamils make up 14% of the population. There is a significant population (8.0%) of Moors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Moors), who trace their lineage to Arab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab) traders and immigrants from the Middle East. Their presence is concentrated in the cities and the central and eastern provinces. There are also small ethnic groups such as the Burghers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgher_people) (of mixed European descent) and Malays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_race) from Southeast Asia.

Thanks for the clear up Shed. I saw a show on the history of India and the caostal Tamils there had some on the closest DNA to Afrcan people. Its probable its one of the first areas colonised in the migration from Africa. FWIW.

Im not advocating an open door policy. But I am frustrated at the mistruths being spread about boat people and immigrants generally. Our pollies use them as footballs to show how tough they are and how weak other side is. The bottom line for me is that we jail these people for escaping their unfortunate lot in life and that is not good enough. Somewhere we need to retain our basic human goodness and compassion (the fabled "fair go") in this debate and I just dont see it happening. A bunch of unaccompanied 13-16 yo's are being shipped off to Baxter. I have kids that age, they dont deserve to be jailed for fleeing for thier lives. Jail should be reserved for those who commit crimes that put the rest of the population in peril.

The debate about what Australia can comfortably hold as a population is a really important one to have but just imagine if there is a big crisis in Indonesia, a civil war or volcanic eruption. Indonesians will flee to the next safe place, Australia. People flee conflicts. There are boats crossing the Mediterranean every day. There are huge problems with boat people in Italy and Malta. The Southern half of the USA has thrived for generations on illegal labour from Mexico and Latin America. I really dont see any way it can be stopped. Its the price of having poor neighbours.

Waldo

20th April 2010, 11:01 AM

There was a very interesting discussion on Q&A last night, and one of the panel members really surprised me, and that was Carr.

He and others, like the point I'm trying to make and others here are trying to get across.

Immigration and the levels of it with Dudds dream of 56 million people by 2050 has to be tied to infrastructure and what our country can support, inclusive of cultivatable lands, water etc.

Forget the emotion of it we have to look at the facts. And if we want a certain level of immigration then we have to look at infrastructure.

I'd like to do buy a great big drum sander, but without achieving certain things it is just pie in the sky - same thing.

hughie

20th April 2010, 12:08 PM

I really dont see any way it can be stopped. Its the price of having poor neighbours.

Love him or hate him, John Howard stopped the boat people from arriving. It can be stopped and controlled.

What I don't appreciate is the fact that some of, if not many of these people throw away their ID papers on nearing Australia. If they are such good and worthwhile people, one would question the need to do this.

Now before howls start, there have been many in the past ie Viet Namese who arrived with minimal ID and got excepted. The Viet Namese did not pose a threat with their ideology or politics.

It is those who pose a threat to the culture and way of life here that are the cause for concern. Some cultures make no bones about seeking to change this country to what they deem better or best and boast of dates on this successfully happening ie dates I have heard of are 2022 and 2036.

Sturdee

20th April 2010, 12:44 PM

Interesting discussion.

As I arrived in this country a long time ago as a legal immigrant from Holland my view on the subject is very simple.

Australia has every right to decide who and how many people can come and live here, the same as every other country does. When we set quotas on the type and number of immigrants and the procedures for getting approval to come here they ought to be adhered to.

If they are not, then those people who do not comply with these laws are not suitable immigrants and should permanently be denied entry, and as illegal immigrants, they should be sentenced, serve a term of imprisonment and then deported back to their own country.

IMO people who claim to be refugees but travel through a number of countries to come here are not refugees but illegal immigrants.

So no boat people should be allowed to come here.

Peter.

damian

20th April 2010, 01:23 PM

yashinskiy: You have my utmost sympathy. I have had many friends go through the same thing comming here. The time and bureaucracy are unjustifiable.

I will offer two comments though: The government treats citizens exactly the same way. If you ever get entangled with a government department you sink into a mire of stupidity, and this is one of teh things about this country that infuriates me. Second, if immigrants didn't have so many avenues of appeal the immigration department wouldn't need to cover it's backside as much as it does. I am sure you are a reasonable person, but there isa signifigant minority in every society who will take every opportunity afforded them. This is one of the reasons you hear about illegals detained for years, they are exhausting their appeals.

Sebastiaan56:

"Unlike the Palestinians who were the traditional owners of the land they are displaced"

at what point in time ? The ancestors of the jews were in jerusalem 3500 years ago.

"I think a much bigger threat is home grown terrorists such as those being trained in the mosques in our capital cities."

What ? Oh wait, I'm the racist ...

"From what I understand improving living standards and education reduce population growth. Thats where the effort and aid money should be spent IMO."

Yep. Consider yourself in their shoes, australia erupts in war. Would you prefer someone to come and stop the fighting or you to be displaced to another country, language and culture ? Australia is in famine and economic collapse, would you prefer someone to come in and sort it out or to be moved to another country ?

Hughie:

"The Viet Namese did not pose a threat with their ideology or politics."

Sort of. I had the pleasure of knowing and working with some vietnamese immigrants back in the early 80's. Remarkably hard working, intelligent and tolerant. The trouble was within thier ranks were quite a few southern chinese triads who got that branch of organised crime really ramped up in aus. Take a stroll through cabramatta some time, only go armed, even if it's daylight.

Sturdee: Interestingly if you look at unemployment broken down by country of origion the Dutch have long been in the top spot in australia. Not really surprising, high english literacy, compatible culture, strong work ethic, strong educational background.

Nice to see people making arguments rather than abuse. Emotion is good, but being irrational is not the same thing.

Big Shed

20th April 2010, 01:38 PM

Sturdee: Interestingly if you look at unemployment broken down by country of origion the Dutch have long been in the top spot in australia. Not really surprising, high english literacy, compatible culture, strong work ethic, strong educational background.

Nice to see people making arguments rather than abuse. Emotion is good, but being irrational is not the same thing.



Huh? They have a strong work ethic and are on top of the unemployment table by country of origin? I think I know what you are trying to say, but that is not what I am reading there:doh:

damian

20th April 2010, 01:48 PM

I thought about that when I posted it. I suppose it depends on who you put at the top of the list, the lowest rate of unemployment or the highest. A better wording did not occure to me so I ran with it.

The Australian Dutch have the lowest rate of unemployment by ethnicity, or did last I looked. As I recall the Lebanese had the highest, but my memory is not perfect.

Better ? :) Now just don't attack my spelling :D

hughie

20th April 2010, 02:39 PM

"The Viet Namese did not pose a threat with their ideology or politics."
Sort of. I had the pleasure of knowing and working with some vietnamese immigrants back in the early 80's. Remarkably hard working, intelligent and tolerant. The trouble was within thier ranks were quite a few southern chinese triads who got that branch of organised crime really ramped up in aus. Take a stroll through cabramatta some time, only go armed, even if it's daylight.
point taken, but these lawless elements of the Viet Namese exist in all our immigrants to some extent or another. I was looking at systematic changes being brought about to effectively alter this society to be a carbon copy of another else where, at great expense to this nation as a whole.

The lawless element by and large have no real interest in such changes. Organized crime is just that, organized to max the profit. Our history is littered with such men and women.It seems every nationality has its day in this regard, Irish, Italian, Lebanese and so on.

...And for those who might be wondering, I to migrated to this country from a far less than 30 years ago.

Chumley

20th April 2010, 03:53 PM

G'day all,

Interesting discussion. My parents refugeed out of central Europe to England in the '50's - re-qualified, worked a while, then emigrated to Aus. I'm an Aussie Citizen, but sometimes feel slightly out of sync with my fellow Aussies (like what date is Christmas...).

My own take is that I have no problem with immigrants, wonder why trades are not on the list anymore seeing as how there always seems to be a shortage, am suspicious about people jumping queues but recognise that Australia is a pretty attractive target for boat people.

My biggest annoyance are people who emmigrate but make little effort to integrate - eg don't bother learning the language, collect in cultural enclaves, etc.

The biggest problem are those who make extreme efforts to change Aus to reflect their original culture. If it was so good, why did they leave? I cringe when I read about English pollies who suggest that Sharia Law may be beneficial in some areas. Bullsh*t! Same thing can happen here. This is Australia. While we can grow in some ways (take the wide range of Asian food available these days) in others we should remain firm. Don't know how to stop this or fix it, only think we will be in trouble some day.

Cheers,
Adam

rsser

20th April 2010, 04:09 PM

Sturdee

20th April 2010, 05:07 PM

Better ? :) Now just don't attack my spelling :D

I understood what you meant to say.

Peter.

jimbur

20th April 2010, 05:17 PM

Re boat people, I'd bought the view that harsh treatment discouraged arrivals, but this morning a Prof of Public Policy from an Aus uni interviewed on ABC radio argued that there's good evidence that since the early 70s the only effective approach has been to negotiate bilateral agreements with the countries from which they come. Ie. control the problem at source or at least at the staging post. Those agreements have been struck with China, Cambodia and Vietnam.

The problem is the nature of the problem. It isn't just our problem but a world problem. We have it relatively easy compared with some. I was reading about Malta - less than half a million population, 1500 refugees on average arrive there every year (3000 in 2008).
Whenever a problem is complex and seemingly intractable the temptation is to embrace simplistic solutions especially if they sound good on the hustings. For example a smaller population sounds good but how many voters would accept control of the birth rate and all that it would entail?
Since the second world war we have been constantly engaged on the world stage whether through aid or military action. Like it or not we are part of the wider community of nations and that is where true solutions lie.
If we need any sense of proportion look at the people stuck at the world's airports for a few days because of volcanic ash. Big news. Keep them waiting for a few years and call them refugees and they'll soon slip out of the headlines until someone sees a vote in it.
I'm going back to the shed. I can handle things in there.
Jim

rsser

20th April 2010, 05:31 PM

Couldn't agree more.

There's the immediate cause of a 'problem' and many more proximate causes. Dealing with the latter is the only logical approach but it also usually happens to be much more difficult and time-consuming.

Black Cat

20th April 2010, 06:03 PM

We're thinking of introducing an immigration policy here in Tassie - all your blooming mainlanders who come over and try to change they way we live ...

If you live in an attractive location, others want to live there too. They move there, and then want to change it to suit what they are accustomed to. It is human nature. It was not so long ago SE Queensland was a nice remote, mosquito-infested spot you could take the kids to on a camping holiday. Now it is Las Vegas by Sea.

I think the problem is that the underpopulated area is viewed as fair game by the over-populated area, and those who then move there suddenly find the silence and solitude needs to be filled up with noise and cafes (or sharia law that lets them continue to do the things that make them feel comfortable).

rsser

20th April 2010, 06:28 PM

It's ironic isn't it that the free traders bang on about free markets for goods, services and capital, but not in labour.

Yes, Tassie is v. attractive for many reasons, and your real estate prices are rising cos so many baby boomers have hit retirement age and are looking for a nice place for it, and your real estate is much cheaper on average than the mainland's.

jimbur

20th April 2010, 08:38 PM

Thought Tassie had its own sanctions - called chilblains:D

yashinskiy

20th April 2010, 11:18 PM

Even though I find myself rather a victim in the whole immigration game I think Australia is not doing to bad. Looking at all racial and immigration problems through out Europe and States, being cautious is the least Aussie govt can do. Talking with a few migration agents in different parts of the world I found out that Australia is "a leader" when it comes to solutions of immigration issues. Canada and UK are currently reviewing their immigration policies based on the results Australia has achieved.
Some mornings I make semolina porridge for my family and the key is to pour semolina slowly in a very slim stream otherwise it will form big hard lumps. That's essentially the tactic Australia sticks to by letting few people from here and few from there so they don't aggregate into separatist minorities. People who come from hard backgrounds are worth at least two locals. They'll work twice as hard for half the money. No offence to anyone but it is the fact I have lived it and I have witnessed it on numerous occasions. It's not always smooth though. Say in Sudanese culture men do not work, what are we going to do about that? We cannot reverse someone's cultural training in the matter of months. The only thing we can do is exercising tolerance and patience.
Comparing Australian government's policies to say Russian ones, aussies are doing bloody brilliant, fair enough still tonnes of work and ####-loads of mistakes. I'd like to stick to the words of the greatest:
"Be the change you would like to see in the world."

Not to oversimplify the problem, here is a solution: Say there is a limited amount of openings available to enter Australia. Candidates pass basic background checks etc and before they enter Australia, they sign a paper which states that they promise to be a good citizen. full stop. I lived in Logan for a while, some of the higher unemployment rates come from this areas, however you will see some of the dirtiest yards in town, where people spend the whole day at home. It isn't difficult to establish when people are putting in a solid effort into the community and therefore into the economy. And then after a check or two if the good citizen requirement not fulfilled (no effort to learn the language, find a job, basically settle), send them back. No need to meet any unreasonable benchmarks or excessive paperwork. Immigration dept hires thousands to answer the same questions and pointing people to more then unhelpful website I think there can be better use to those resources.
While we are at it I'll check some of the Aussies against good citizen requirement. You folks would agree there would be one to many spots to be filled by blood suckers on the dingy to be kicked away from the shore.

Though how would we know about good citizen if there isn't a ###### one somewhere.

Alexander

Sebastiaan56

21st April 2010, 07:29 AM

"I think a much bigger threat is home grown terrorists such as those being trained in the mosques in our capital cities."

What ? Oh wait, I'm the racist ...


Damian,

I dont believe I have called you a racist, if I have I unreservedly apologise. There are racist elements in this debate (particularly in the right wing media) but as far as I know I have not personalised it nor would I do so. Ive spent to much time listening to Parliment to see any value in that tactic..... It means I would become like them and that is an appalling thought. Part of the reason I engage in these conversations is too learn, there are always points I havent considered or been aware of. Life is an infinite series of grey issues, my own positions included.

Aussie mosques are increasing inhabited by white folks as well as those for whom Islam is an indigenous religion. I dont think its any secret that most of the recent terror in the world has been done in the name of Islam. I dont think its any secret that Lakemba Mosque is a hot bed of radical Islamic teaching. I dont think it is any secret that the Islamic world is deeply divided along tribal and ideological lines and that the real threat to Sunnis is Shia and visa versa. Im not racist on this issue, I know Muslims of lots of ethnicities, but I have a strong dislike for the radical elements of Islam. The terror in UK, Denmark and Holland was from locally grown groups trained by radicals from the Middle East, not boat people. This is the biggest threat to Australia IMO. BTW with the internet this will also be impossible to stop.

Curiously and way off topic, the white Aussies who have been converted seem to adopt the same victim attitude as the indigenous Muslims. What are they teaching these people?

A bunch of unaccompanied 13-18 yo's are now imprisoned in Baxter. Labour's policy of the 70's lives. Lock up the children! These twerps give me the sh!ts.

While we are at it I'll check some of the Aussies against good citizen requirement. You folks would agree there would be one to many spots to be filled by blood suckers on the dingy to be kicked away from the shore.

:hahaha::hahaha::hahaha:

hughie

21st April 2010, 10:43 AM

Aussie mosques are increasing inhabited by white folks as well as those for whom Islam is an indigenous religion. I dont think its any secret that most of the recent . I dont think it is any secret that the Islamic world is deeply divided along tribal and ideological lines and that the real threat to Sunnis is Shia and visa versa. stop.

As a side note to this discussion. The major problem is that Islam has no central body of learning as we see with most other religious beliefs. They have the Koran and something called the Hadith. The Hadith is the daily out working of the teachings of the Koran and is effected by teacher, ethnicity and so on. Ie Wahabism the teachings of the Koranic reformer Abd Al-Wahhab 1703-1792 for example. The Sunni are the major proponents of this teaching and take his teachings to heart especially about Jihad and therefore are at odds with the Shia and the Sufi

But if we speak to other elements of Islam for instance, the Sufi their interpretation of Jihad is completely the opposite. Their view is that Jihad is ones personal spiritual battle to be a good follower of Allah.There are various shades all the way up and down for these two view points.

This flexibility allows all manner of doctrine to exist as per each imam's beliefs and desires. Much of which seems to be about money, power and control by an elite group over the masses.

Its for this reason we do not see much if any democracy in the middle east. Al Jazeera exist because of powerful backing.But its not viewed fondly by all in the region due to its version of ''Freedom of the Press" etc etc.

Our Political Correctness policies do nothing to prevent our problems in this area, in fact I think they foster them.

rsser

21st April 2010, 11:14 AM

Yes. Christianity is not exactly a coherent body of theology and teachings either.

damian

21st April 2010, 11:31 AM

We're thinking of introducing an immigration policy here in Tassie - all your blooming mainlanders who come over and try to change they way we live ...

If you live in an attractive location, others want to live there too. They move there, and then want to change it to suit what they are accustomed to. It is human nature. It was not so long ago SE Queensland was a nice remote, mosquito-infested spot you could take the kids to on a camping holiday. Now it is Las Vegas by Sea.

Yep and the southerners are at the daylight saving again!

Too many Melbournians in brisbane now...no one seems to have told them u turns at traffic lights are ILLEGAL up here....Just go home. You wanna live in melbourne, go live in melbourne...(my ladyfriend comes from geelong and I suspect the rest of the victorians regard meblourites about the same as we do).

I'm eyeing launceston, scottsdale actually.

Don't worry, if I move to tassie I'm prepared to grow extra digits in order to fit in :D

damian

21st April 2010, 11:49 AM

Damian,

I dont believe I have called you a racist, if I have I unreservedly apologise.

No, I did. I did it specifically to remove that element of the discussion. It is not on any level a valid point to accuse the people disagreeing with you of being racist. It simply doesn't matter if they are, argue the point not the person. It is literally like accusing a woman of having no right to discuss childbirth because they are the ones that go through it.

Anyone who raises a valid point in a debate is entitled to. Address the point.

Aussie mosques are increasing inhabited by white folks as well as those for whom Islam is an indigenous religion. I dont think its any secret that most of the recent terror in the world has been done in the name of Islam. I dont think its any secret that Lakemba Mosque is a hot bed of radical Islamic teaching. I dont think it is any secret that the Islamic world is deeply divided along tribal and ideological lines and that the real threat to Sunnis is Shia and visa versa. Im not racist on this issue, I know Muslims of lots of ethnicities, but I have a strong dislike for the radical elements of Islam. The terror in UK, Denmark and Holland was from locally grown groups trained by radicals from the Middle East, not boat people. This is the biggest threat to Australia IMO. BTW with the internet this will also be impossible to stop.

2 things here:

1. The only reason we know about antisocial activities in mosques is because the very great majority of muslims aren't radical and are reporting the activity to the authorities.

2. The only reason the west percieves islam as more antisocial than christianity (for example) is because of the way our media report the world. The fact is christian governments and other organisations have been slaughtering no believers by the millions for decades. It never gets reported. Mind they don't wave a cross over the holy wars, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the US went into iraq because of religeon, not oil. If it had been oil why didn't they take the african nations that have nearly the same reserves and have been in greater chaos than the middle east for 20 years ?

I am no lover of islam. I grew up in the western suburbs of sydney and saw first hand just how disgusting moslems and arabs could be, but I also saw that not everyone in those groups behaved that way. Like christianity and judaism you can use it to justify utterly disgusting behavious or it can be a conduit to a better life.

Hughie:

I have to disagree. The jews apart from being heavily factionalised rely heavily on the teachings of each rabbi. On the other hand if you take the catholic church which is strictly heirarchial and demands absolute obedience they are hardly without sin.

My point is I don't think the structure of the church is necessarily the problem

hughie

21st April 2010, 02:19 PM

I have to disagree. The Jews apart from being heavily factionalised rely heavily on the teachings of each rabbi. On the other hand if you take the catholic church which is strictly hierarchical and demands absolute obedience they are hardly without sin.
But both beliefs you mentioned do not allow the extremist view point that some are preaching from the mosque

My point is I don't think the structure of the church is necessarily the problem
Indeed its not the structure, but rather a lack of it that allows wide swings in interpretation.. Its true we have seen some pretty weird teachings in both Judaism and Christianity over the years . But it has always been when brought to the light roundly condemned. They may continue but outside the belief structure they profess to belong to.
Not something we see very often, if at all by the moderates of Islam. However that maybe in part a media issue as well of speaking up and no doubt retribution here plays a big part to silence the moderates as well.

Christianity is not exactly a coherent body of theology and teachings eitherBy and large Christian teachings are similar enough for all believe to obtain entry into Heaven and or not as the case maybe. Some thing is not possible with wide fluctuations in teachings or schools of thought of the belief in question.

The point I am making is that the fluctuations or variances in interpretation are wide enough to encompass just what ever the situation demands. But if you a central body on knowledge call it doctrine then you have a guidance system of checks. That can recognize rogues and extremists and deal with them in accordance to the teachings etc

rsser

21st April 2010, 02:39 PM

Hughie, the diff btwn Catholic and Calvinist doctrine on what you have to do to achieve salvation and an afterlife is enormous.

Of a scale to explain the emergence of capitalism acc to one social theorist.

Sebastiaan56

21st April 2010, 03:12 PM

Damian,

this is probably better done offline but...

Ive just printed and reread the whole thread. I can not find where I have tried to stifle debate. Nor have I called anyone racist or made it personal. I have tried to add my perspective about the human cost which is my interest. Happy to be pilloried for what I think and say as long as its what I think and say. This issue is obviously too sensitive for open debate, time for a break, over and out.

hughie

22nd April 2010, 01:00 AM

Hughie, the diff btwn Catholic and Calvinist doctrine on what you have to do to achieve salvation and an afterlife is enormous.

:U Your right Ern.But there is still respect for each view point or doctrine and with that certain amount of harmony.I did say by and large :U as they both accept the Trinity, Lordship of Christ, water baptism etc as key elements

I think perhaps Sebastian has a good point we are moving into a place great sensitivity .
I brought it up with idea it would foster some debate etc which it has done, perhaps its time to move on.

I am signing off on this, for those who wish to carry on, perhaps in another arena.

damian

22nd April 2010, 09:58 AM

Hughie:

Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

I contend that if you make a study of the jewish and christian "faiths" you will find exactly the same wild misinterpretations of the books, exactly the same vicious behaviour and exactly the same lack of central authority or any other form of self correction. I don't think I have time to go find references for you as I'm going to NZ on holiday this saturday and am a bit rushed this week. If I can't support my position then I might as well not have one.

While I disagree with you I am really happy you've thought about this and made sensible arguments.

Sebastiaan56: If you have the whole thread handy perhaps you can find where I accused YOU of calling me racist. I concede some of my comments may be misinterpreted that way, but it was intended as a general reference. As I said previously my intention was to take that element out of this discussion. I am very happy to hear anyone's views on immigration and refugees. I would really like to read a compelling argument on why we should encourage immigration and how better to handle refugees wanting to settle in Australia. There are bits and pieces of that from various people but as far as I can see no one has made a good comprehensive statment explaining their position. I THINK I have, but maybe I haven't made myself clear.

Edit: I don't think anyone singled me out as racist. It was brought up a few times and my intention was to eliminate it globally. It is not an argument. My comments weren't aimed specifically at you.

As I said above I'm a tad distracted just now...