Asylum immigrants - Green Light

[Ves]

Any way, we've probably gone off track a bit. We can both sit here and criticise the UN all day for a heap of different reasons.

But my main point was that the US isn't leaving the United Nations any time soon. It doesn't hurt them financially and they can sit there and veto whatever they want if they're a part of it.

edit: It'd be an absolute clusterfuck for financial markets and would destabilise economies worldwide if they did decide to leave.

 

[SirRumpole]

Whilst the UNHRC does do some good work in the background, it's pretty hard to do much without the support of the Security Council in most cases.

You have just stated the UN's faults, which we all know.

The bottom line is that the UN as dominated by the Security Council will rarely ever agree on security issues because their own interests take precedence and one or more members are likely to veto resolutions put up by "the other side".

Therefore nothing will be achieved and the UN is basically useless.

Let's face it, a properly functioning UN would not allow a situation like Syria to arise. It's not performing any functions that would prevent or minimise the slaughter or bring the situation to an end.

 

[Ves]

You have just stated the UN's faults, which we all know.

The bottom line is that the UN as dominated by the Security Council will rarely ever agree on security issues because their own interests take precedence and one or more members are likely to veto resolutions put up by "the other side".

Therefore nothing will be achieved and the UN is basically useless.

Let's face it, a properly functioning UN would not allow a situation like Syria to arise. It's not performing any functions that would prevent or minimise the slaughter or bring the situation to an end.

Don't have the time to reply in any depth tonight, but I did find a post someone made on this matter which was pretty interesting:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-the-USA-left-the-UN

What would happen if the USA left the UN?

Diplomatic and Political Chaos

Firstly, there is no official way to leave the United Nations.

There is simple no clause or article in the UN charter, no resolution and no public statements or procedures regarding withdrawal from the UN.

The U.N. Charter deliberately made no provision for the withdrawal of member governments, largely to prevent the threat of withdrawal from being used as a form of political blackmail, or to evade obligations under the Charter.

So, there’s that.

This means that if the USA wanted to abandon the UN it would have to do so completely through unconventional terms undefined by international law.

The most likely way of doing this would be-

• Stop sending representatives to the UN. If America stops being represented at the UN and issues a public statement regarding the same, it would have done this to express their discontent with the way the UN works. Countries like the Soviet Union and Syria have done this before. However, this would be a slow process.
• Stop funding the UN. USA contributes around 22% of the UN’s budget. Apparently, that’s more than 185 other countries combined. Not contributing anything would send definite clear signals. According to the official UN website-

Every Member State is legally obligated to pay their respective share towards peacekeeping. This is in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Charter of the United Nations.

• Stop hosting the UN. Currently, the United Nations is headquartered in New York. USA could choose to close the UN building, however, this would be full of legal disputes which complicate the situation. Still, this would be the fastest way to exit the institution.

After USA does all that, the chaos would begin.

Firstly, all diplomats and permanent representatives would have to be taken back home immediately.

Economies around the world would immediately destabilize and the USA would be the worst hit.

Stocks markets are likely to be in complete chaos over the weeks to come.

The UN would come up with an official statement in a day or so.

Most likely, the UN headquarters would be shifted temporarily to a neutral country. Austria and Switzerland would be favorable choices.

The implications for the world after this look devastating.

The action would be more or less unprecedented and would shake up its diplomatic relations with all other nations.

It seems that if this were to happen under Trump, it would be part of a grand scheme of protectionism and political isolation.

Hence, USA would face immediate counter actions from relatively hostile countries (maybe Russia) who are likely to subject USA to harsh sanctions. These will affect USA drastically.

Many countries may even suspend diplomatic relations with USA and use another neutral country to protect its interests in America.

Overall, the event would be disastrous for USA’s foreign policy.

Europe would respond by distancing itself from American influence.

NATO is likely to be in intense scrutiny. There are good chances it may even be dissolved. Also with it, America’s nuclear umbrella over Europe is likely to fade away.

This may result in aggression from Russia as it would view it as a rare opportunity where America is distanced from Europe and the latter is vulnerable.

States which came under USA’s nuclear sharing program before, would now start developing their own nuclear arsenals which would greatly heighten the chances of a world war.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea and various other countries in the EU would launch their own nuclear programs as there would be no international pressures stopping them, especially due to the absence of treaties like the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of the UN.

Existing nuclear powers would greatly strengthen their own arsenals and work to make better technologies capable of inflicting worse damages on enemy states.

China’s reaction would be the hardest to define but it can be said for certain that they wouldn’t be happy.

After this, USA’s permanent seat on the UNSC would be dissolved after the other four amend the UN charter.

The United Nations would then stay as a much weaker political entity with almost no influence or real power. It is very likely that it would be ultimately dissolved.

The European Union would strive to become much more stronger both militarily and politically and would reject all influence the USA casts on it.

American free trade with any and all nations is likely to come at an abrupt end.

If this were to happen soon, one can expect victories of all far-right wing parties in Europe.

Thus, the world would plunge into a nationalist, anti-globalist and authoritarian stance which is likely to be long lasting.

This ideology would reverse decades of diplomacy and international stability.

The UN’s collapse combined with the League of Nation’s failure would mean that any future international institutions are likely not to form and there would be no global framework to abide by.

The absence of the UN and distrust between countries would mean

• More bloody conflicts which would be difficult to resolve
• Greater leverage of terrorist groups like ISIS over territory
• Almost no humanitarian aid to places in distress including war-torn countries and regions struck with deadly natural calamities.
• A far greater risk of another world war due to hostile nations and nuclear proliferation.
• No checks and balances over authoritarian regimes like that of Syria or North Korea
• No development of infrastructure in developing nations
• Vulnerable economies which are largely unstable and prone to recessions
• Increased fatalities due to diseases which could have been prevented by the World Health Organization
• A huge disaster in the field of human rights which have protected authoritarian regimes from inflicting cruel and unethical treatment on their citizens
• And so on.

The unfortunate reality is that as much as we’d like to think the UN is obsolete, it serves a vital purpose in today’s global arena, without which the world would’ve been in absolute turmoil.

I think it answers a lot of your questions.

 

[SirRumpole]

Don't have the time to reply in any depth tonight, but I did find a post someone made on this matter which was pretty interesting:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-the-USA-left-the-UN



I think it answers a lot of your questions.

I don't agree with all the supposed ramifications detailed in that article.

If the US and other western nations left or refused to participate in the UN and instead formed their own alliance then a number of the supposed downsides could be averted.

Anyway, it's theoretical, but with Trump at the helm of the US, who knows.

 

[noco]

I honestly don't think that this will happen either.

I'm not sure how much you think Western countries (or any member nation) pay into the United Nations budget but in the scheme of things it's a drop in the ocean. The annual budget isn't any more than $10 billion. For some reason I don't think money is an issue.

In fact, if you look into the matter closely the USA has a history of being in debt to the UN because it's congress fails to authorise the payment of its dues time and time again. It's not like they're a golden child by any stretch of the imagination, despite people boasting they (eventually) pay 22% of the budget contributions.

The indirect benefits enjoyed by the larger member states of being in the UN far outweigh any financial contributions that are made to it IMO. Actually by merely having a UN office in New York the USA pretty much recoup their annual contributions.

Perhaps the UN is reconfigured one day as you predict, but it ain't happening because a senator from Alabama is trying to pass a bill in Congress and it certainly ain't happening because of financial reasons.

This is the UN budget for 2016/2017......$5.4 billion and they employ 22,421.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/gaab4164.doc.htm

 

[noco]

Don't have the time to reply in any depth tonight, but I did find a post someone made on this matter which was pretty interesting:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-the-USA-left-the-UN



I think it answers a lot of your questions.

With the cut in funding to the UN by the USA, that could see the see the beginning of the end for the UN.....The USA may not need to pull out of the UN......There is more ways than one to skin s cat.

Russia contributes 3.088% and China 7.923%

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...arm-at-reports-trump-will-order-sweeping-cuts

 

[noco]

Don't have the time to reply in any depth tonight, but I did find a post someone made on this matter which was pretty interesting:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-the-USA-left-the-UN



I think it answers a lot of your questions.

Your link certainly spells out the way the USA could cause chaos in the UN.

 

[noco]

https://www.votocrat.com/susane.lis...nt-cut-immigration-to-make-housing-affordable

 

[Ves]

If the US and other western nations left or refused to participate in the UN and instead formed their own alliance then a number of the supposed downsides could be averted.

Of course it would remove the downsides and create its own new advantages (mainly removing barriers currently in the way of taking certain actions). But in the process that creates new downsides.

Without a central body such as the UN diplomatic barriers are broken and it is much harder to maintain or enforce an International Law system. Yes the UN is deeply bureaucratic and at times arguably unproductive, but by being so it provides certain barriers to conflict and creates a situation where 'soft' power must be used.

The whole point of barriers to action and the need to use 'soft' power is that it provides much more global stability.

In removing the status quo provided by the UN you are creating a situation where different 'blocks' of countries will have their own sets of rules or expectations, or their own standards within shared alliances. As you've admitted this in reality already happens and you consider the UN as a roadblock to action. But without this roadblock it is much easier to take unilateral action as the consequences and oversight are removed. There would be no globally enforceable law because every 'block' of countries would have their own idea what this is. The only way to resolve some conflicts would be bloody war (see: history).

History is littered with examples of what happens when you make unilateral action easier. However there were no nuclear weapons in any other time of history like there is now.

 

[McLovin]

If the US and other western nations left or refused to participate in the UN and instead formed their own alliance then a number of the supposed downsides could be averted.

Europe tore itself apart because of a fractured alliance system. How else does one angry Serb cause the death of 40 million people?

 

[drsmith]

There was no boats in April.

 

[MrBurns]

Peta Credlin: Muslim polygamy bedded down by PC bureaucrats

I LIKE to think growing up in a small country town gave me a good grounding in the fundamentals because Middle Australia is a place where common sense is still (thankfully) common, people work hard, right is right and wrong is wrong.

I used to think everywhere else was the same too but 16 years working in politics threw that idea out the window.

Not only are we fast becoming a nation where a small few like to lecture the majority, we’re also being taken for a ride by a growing number of people who exploit the benefits and goodwill of the very country they might live in, but refuse to join.

Worse still, when anyone tries to call this out as not being “the Australian way”, they’re branded “unAustralian”, told they’re racist, intolerant or worse.

I always thought that the great battles in human rights were fought around the inalienable principle that we’re all equal regardless of race, gender, class or sexuality.

Yet now, in this age of identity politics, your “difference” is what matters rather than your common humanity.

Take the case this week of Moutia Elzahed, who is suing police for alleged brutality resulting from counter-terrorism raids that took place in Sydney in 2014.

This court case alone is a case study in how far we have gone down the path of junking the very foundations our society was built on.

In court this week, Mrs Elzahed (and we’ll get to the “Mrs” in a moment) refused to take off her full-face veil to give evidence despite the fact she had initiated the legal action.

The judge hearing the case, NSW District Court Justice Audrey Balla, offered other options for her to give evidence in a more private setting but all required her face to be shown because, rightly, Balla affirmed the long-held principle that facial expressions are a key tool used by the court in assessing the truthfulness of a witness’ testimony.

Despite the concessions, Moutia Elzahed still refused to remove her veil and also refused to stand when the judge entered the room because, as her legal counsel explained, she stood only for Allah.

Yes, you’ve got it right; Moutia Elzahed was trying to make use of the very legal system she refused to respect. Justice Balla made it crystal clear she wouldn’t tolerate disrespect in her court and she was backed up by the NSW Attorney-General Gabrielle Upton.


Moutia Elzahed is not a lone case of courtroom disrespect.

Things have got so bad in NSW that they passed a special law a year or so ago to deal with the growing numbers of Muslim men (and now women) refusing to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court and show necessary respect to the bench.

Frankly, it’s ridiculous that these extremists have been allowed to get away with this nonsense until now.

Sadly, unlike Justice Balla, most of the judges have let it go which is why a special law was passed.

Despite this repeated bad behaviour, most of the media — like the judges — turned a blind eye to the issue.


You’ve got to wonder whether this leniency and lack of reporting would have extended to others treating the court with contempt or whether it was a special concession because they were Muslim, lest anyone brand them “Islamophobic”?

But it gets worse. Go and look for it yourself, but buried in articles reporting Moutia Elzahed’s case is a reference to the fact that she is “one of the two wives” of convicted Islamic State terrorism recruiter, Hamdi Alqudsi.

Convicted IS recruiter Hamdi Alqudsi has two wives.

Yes, you’ve got it right again; not ex-wife, not former wife but “one of two wives”.

How is it that a line like that passes by most in our media class without comment?

This is hardly how we expect women in this country to be treated — where’s the women’s outrage lobby now?

Many Islamic marriages are, for legal purposes, de facto relationships because they are religious ceremonies rather than official marriages.

But Australian law clearly says marriage can only be a union between one man and one woman.

Sadly, this is not the first time I have seen reference to “wives” plural.

A few years ago I was in a meeting in Canberra discussing budget reform when our conversation moved to the area of rorts within the welfare sector and family payments specifically; after all, we spend billions every year supporting people with children.

Slipped into this briefing was acknowledgment by the public service of cases where it was likely that payments were being provided to families living under one roof with multiple wives.

I thought I must have heard it wrong. So I followed up again.

Hamdi Alqudsi’s two wives leave Parramatta District Court.

No, I got it right the first time.

I was informed that it was probably better for the taxpayer anyway because if one wife had to be paid separately she would receive additional support as a single parent.

I couldn’t believe what I was told. If it was true, I said, we were accepting as a principle in welfare policy something that was fundamentally wrong — both at law and in our culture — pure and simple.

No one really disagreed but as is so often the case in Canberra, it was someone else’s problem and they took a few notes.

Straight after the meeting, I raised it with the then prime minister, who found it just as difficult to believe as I did.

He said regardless of the budget argument put forward by the public servants, the principle was paramount. He demanded more details and action but the leadership change came … and the rest is history.

The reporting of the Moutia Elzahed case reminded me of this debate.

Worse, it reminded me that there are just too many places where we are turning a blind eye to changes in our Australian culture that go against the grain of who we are, and what it is that makes this country one of the best on earth.

Despite the concerted efforts of those who want to define us by our differences, who we are as a people is just as important as who we are as individuals.

And wanting to protect what we have is something to be proud of, not shut down.

I hope Canberra is listening.

 

[noco]

Peta Credlin: Muslim polygamy bedded down by PC bureaucrats

I LIKE to think growing up in a small country town gave me a good grounding in the fundamentals because Middle Australia is a place where common sense is still (thankfully) common, people work hard, right is right and wrong is wrong.

I used to think everywhere else was the same too but 16 years working in politics threw that idea out the window.

Not only are we fast becoming a nation where a small few like to lecture the majority, we’re also being taken for a ride by a growing number of people who exploit the benefits and goodwill of the very country they might live in, but refuse to join.

Worse still, when anyone tries to call this out as not being “the Australian way”, they’re branded “unAustralian”, told they’re racist, intolerant or worse.

I always thought that the great battles in human rights were fought around the inalienable principle that we’re all equal regardless of race, gender, class or sexuality.

Yet now, in this age of identity politics, your “difference” is what matters rather than your common humanity.

Take the case this week of Moutia Elzahed, who is suing police for alleged brutality resulting from counter-terrorism raids that took place in Sydney in 2014.

This court case alone is a case study in how far we have gone down the path of junking the very foundations our society was built on.

In court this week, Mrs Elzahed (and we’ll get to the “Mrs” in a moment) refused to take off her full-face veil to give evidence despite the fact she had initiated the legal action.

The judge hearing the case, NSW District Court Justice Audrey Balla, offered other options for her to give evidence in a more private setting but all required her face to be shown because, rightly, Balla affirmed the long-held principle that facial expressions are a key tool used by the court in assessing the truthfulness of a witness’ testimony.

Despite the concessions, Moutia Elzahed still refused to remove her veil and also refused to stand when the judge entered the room because, as her legal counsel explained, she stood only for Allah.

Yes, you’ve got it right; Moutia Elzahed was trying to make use of the very legal system she refused to respect. Justice Balla made it crystal clear she wouldn’t tolerate disrespect in her court and she was backed up by the NSW Attorney-General Gabrielle Upton.


Moutia Elzahed is not a lone case of courtroom disrespect.

Things have got so bad in NSW that they passed a special law a year or so ago to deal with the growing numbers of Muslim men (and now women) refusing to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court and show necessary respect to the bench.

Frankly, it’s ridiculous that these extremists have been allowed to get away with this nonsense until now.

Sadly, unlike Justice Balla, most of the judges have let it go which is why a special law was passed.

Despite this repeated bad behaviour, most of the media — like the judges — turned a blind eye to the issue.


You’ve got to wonder whether this leniency and lack of reporting would have extended to others treating the court with contempt or whether it was a special concession because they were Muslim, lest anyone brand them “Islamophobic”?

But it gets worse. Go and look for it yourself, but buried in articles reporting Moutia Elzahed’s case is a reference to the fact that she is “one of the two wives” of convicted Islamic State terrorism recruiter, Hamdi Alqudsi.

Convicted IS recruiter Hamdi Alqudsi has two wives.

Yes, you’ve got it right again; not ex-wife, not former wife but “one of two wives”.

How is it that a line like that passes by most in our media class without comment?

This is hardly how we expect women in this country to be treated — where’s the women’s outrage lobby now?

Many Islamic marriages are, for legal purposes, de facto relationships because they are religious ceremonies rather than official marriages.

But Australian law clearly says marriage can only be a union between one man and one woman.

Sadly, this is not the first time I have seen reference to “wives” plural.

A few years ago I was in a meeting in Canberra discussing budget reform when our conversation moved to the area of rorts within the welfare sector and family payments specifically; after all, we spend billions every year supporting people with children.

Slipped into this briefing was acknowledgment by the public service of cases where it was likely that payments were being provided to families living under one roof with multiple wives.

I thought I must have heard it wrong. So I followed up again.

Hamdi Alqudsi’s two wives leave Parramatta District Court.

No, I got it right the first time.

I was informed that it was probably better for the taxpayer anyway because if one wife had to be paid separately she would receive additional support as a single parent.

I couldn’t believe what I was told. If it was true, I said, we were accepting as a principle in welfare policy something that was fundamentally wrong — both at law and in our culture — pure and simple.

No one really disagreed but as is so often the case in Canberra, it was someone else’s problem and they took a few notes.

Straight after the meeting, I raised it with the then prime minister, who found it just as difficult to believe as I did.

He said regardless of the budget argument put forward by the public servants, the principle was paramount. He demanded more details and action but the leadership change came … and the rest is history.

The reporting of the Moutia Elzahed case reminded me of this debate.

Worse, it reminded me that there are just too many places where we are turning a blind eye to changes in our Australian culture that go against the grain of who we are, and what it is that makes this country one of the best on earth.

Despite the concerted efforts of those who want to define us by our differences, who we are as a people is just as important as who we are as individuals.

And wanting to protect what we have is something to be proud of, not shut down.

I hope Canberra is listening.

How very straight forward is this woman......But no doubt she will be called a racist and a bigot by a small few......What have our politicians let this great country of ours in for?...And yet several polls suggest some 98% of Australians say no more Muslim immigration.

 

[McLovin]

How very straight forward is this woman......But no doubt she will be called a racist and a bigot by a small few......What have our politicians let this great country of ours in for?...And yet several polls suggest some 98% of Australians say no more Muslim immigration.

I know I'll regret asking but what polls are these?

 

[noco]

I know I'll regret asking but what polls are these?

I will let you know when the next one comes out.....But what has that got to do with Peta Credlin?

 

[MrBurns]

Excuse me if I've posted this previously, it's from another forum but sums it all up very well.

"""""I would put it to you that immigration has been fabulous for this country right up until the 1980's. The Italians, Greeks and the Asian immigrants worked hard and did much to enrich the countries culture and economy. They also integrated with our way of life by and large.
The immigration post 1980 has been poorly managed and we imported large numbers of culturally dissimilar races with value systems that are in complete conflict with our way of life. As a generalisation they brought little of value to Australia with them, they don't integrate and they seek to enforce their value systems on US. The crime rate has soared, the welfare drain has skyrocketed and social cohesion is crumbling. Australia is NOT a better place as a result of immigration policies post 1980."""""

 

[McLovin]

I will let you know when the next one comes out.....But what has that got to do with Peta Credlin?

Nothing. Neither does this thread.

 

[luutzu]

Excuse me if I've posted this previously, it's from another forum but sums it all up very well.

"""""I would put it to you that immigration has been fabulous for this country right up until the 1980's. The Italians, Greeks and the Asian immigrants worked hard and did much to enrich the countries culture and economy. They also integrated with our way of life by and large.
The immigration post 1980 has been poorly managed and we imported large numbers of culturally dissimilar races with value systems that are in complete conflict with our way of life. As a generalisation they brought little of value to Australia with them, they don't integrate and they seek to enforce their value systems on US. The crime rate has soared, the welfare drain has skyrocketed and social cohesion is crumbling. Australia is NOT a better place as a result of immigration policies post 1980."""""

Is that the 1980s or the year 1980? Important 'cause I might not make the cut.

 

[MrBurns]

Nothing. Neither does this thread.

Asylum seekers, immigration policy.....much the same .....

 

[McLovin]

Asylum seekers, immigration policy.....much the same .....

I know what the topic is, what does it have to do with Peta Credlin? Which is apparently now where the bar is set for relevance.