Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders

[Garpal Gumnut]

This thread is full of peoples ideas, limited by their ability to say what they think because of political correctness.

This is one of the wins that Keating had.

Remember you are muzzled.

Everything posted has to be couched in pc mode.

So it is not a clear indication of peoples ideas.

gg

 

[Calliope]

Just wander what would be the best way to do it?

Out leaders seem to split them in extremists and your average peace loving ones.

Democracy allows any religion to be here, from memory we have 140+ different religions officially registered here.

If anybody has hidden agenda, all we can do is have friendly insiders who can break this conspiracy.
Otherwise it is doomest doomish doom.

The Italians have got the right idea at last. Send them back to where they departed from, even if it does upset the so called 'human rights' people. Naturally the illegals don't want to live in Libya with their fellow Moslems. Welfare handouts are not so hot there.

Libya accepts boat people back from Italy

LIBYA for the first time has agreed to take back boat people picked up off its shores by Italian vessels, prompting concern among human rights and humanitarian groups.
In what Italian interior minister Roberto Maroni hailed as an "historic day" in the fight against illegal immigration, three Italian navy launches ferried 227 boat people into the port of Tripoli today.

According to Italian aid agency CIR, three of the women were pregnant and had to be taken to hospital on arrival at Tripoli.

Since they had been picked up yesterday in waters patrolled by the nearby island state of Malta, the deal could help resolve a long-running conflict between Italy and Malta over responsibility for boat people, said Mr Maroni.

But aid agency Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF, Doctors Without Borders) condemned what it called a "terrible event".

"Far from being a historic event as the Italian government suggests, this forcible and cynical return is contrary to international laws," the head of MSF-Italy, Loris de Filippi, said.

"You can't send people back to a country like Libya that hasn't ratified international humanitarian conventions like the Geneva convention on human rights," Ms De Filippi said.

"The migrants were unable to make any demands for asylum because they weren't even received," Laura Boldrini, spokeswoman of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, said.

 

[Calanen]

This thread is full of peoples ideas, limited by their ability to say what they think because of political correctness.

This is one of the wins that Keating had.

Remember you are muzzled.

Everything posted has to be couched in pc mode.

So it is not a clear indication of peoples ideas.

gg

I've been accused of many things, but being PC, is not one of them.

 

[Calliope]

Rederob, many of the countries in your table are more than a bit dysfunctional. It's a bit hard to see how they can support refugees, given they barely cope with their own population.

As gg points out, much of this will be drift from one mess into another.
(apologies for a bit of paraphrasing there, gg.)

Julia,
In his post Rederob uses the words;

Tabled below is a selection of countries accepting more refugees than Australia

The word "accepting " is used loosely. Most of these countries no more accept the floods of refugees than we would accept a gatecrasher into our home.

 

[Julia]

Julia,
In his post Rederob uses the words;


The word "accepting " is used loosely. Most of these countries no more accept the floods of refugees than we would accept a gatecrasher into our home.

Yes, I quite realise that. It's why I questioned the capacity of those countries to support refugees.

 

[Spanning Tree]

A line needs to be drawn, otherwise refugees will flood into Australia, and as previously stated - we simply don't have the infrastructure for it.

The current problem with Australia is that there aren't enough people. It is important that Australia has more people to pay taxes to fund our ageing population. This is the reason why the government has focused on immigration and efforts to boost fertility (e.g. Baby Bonus). Infrastructure can only be built if the government has revenue from taxation to fund it. Government will only get the revenue from taxation if there are workers.

Ideally, I believe that in order to continue to attract good workers, welfare needs to be reduced or abolished completely. This not stops some migrants from taking advantage of the system but also Australian-born citizens from doing the same.

 

[Spanning Tree]

this is incorrect. there are many concentrations of welfare dependents amongst various ethnic enclaves. bankstown, fairfield, springvale - all with high concentrations of ethnic minorities and higher than average rates of long term welfare dependence.

the most common line is "white australians use more welfare, commit more crime etc. etc." however this totally fails to take into account the size of the white population compared to other racial groups.

So what are you suggesting, that immigration policy be determined by race. E.g. if you are white then X, if you are black then Y, etc?

The first problem with this is that it is impossible to really know someone's race. I have a friend from Africa. My dad thinks he is black but he told me that in Africa most people there think he is white.

Another problem with race-based policies is that it sets a dangerous precedent. What you are saying is that because race A is more likely to commit crime then you must ban prevent race A from entering the country. However, men are more likely than women to commit crime, so then should government policy prevent men from entering the country? Should government policy subsidize the abortion of male foetuses to reduce crime?

Before your race-based policies can be applied you must address their obvious scientific and statistical problems.

 

[Spanning Tree]

your facts and figures are all "net migration". no one is arguing against "migration". however migration should be selectively sourced so it provides a benefit to society. migrants who follow intolerant ideologies or come from incompatible cultures for example do not benefit society. the facts, figures and points others have posted in this thread clearly point to the fact that migrant intakes from certain sources are undesirable for wider society. seriously, how hard is it for you to understand?

I think it is interesting that you are intolerant of migrants who follow intolerant ideologies.

Furthermore, you talk about "incompatible cultures." What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that everyone who comes into Australia or even everyone who grows up in Australia should behave in the same way, e.g. follow the same religion? Isn't this an intolerant ideology?

That's pretty scary stuff. Immigration controls have been very lax. Things will change however when Islam takes control in Europe. No more infidels will be allowed in.
We just have to make sure it does not take control here.

What have you got against Islam? Islam is very similar to Christianity and 70% of Australians are Christians.

 

[disarray]

The current problem with Australia is that there aren't enough people. It is important that Australia has more people to pay taxes to fund our ageing population.

but where is the line drawn? how many people can this nation support? so we just keep stuffing more and more people into the country until when?

Ideally, I believe that in order to continue to attract good workers, welfare needs to be reduced or abolished completely. This not stops some migrants from taking advantage of the system but also Australian-born citizens from doing the same.

i agree with this. everyone should work. plant trees, dig holes, weave baskets, answer phones, further your education - the free ride mentality has to go.

So what are you suggesting, that immigration policy be determined by race. E.g. if you are white then X, if you are black then Y, etc?

well race is a bit shallow, but i understand its something that much easier for people to get on their high horse about. i'd suggest more along the lines of culture and ideology. for example immigrants from sudan and lebanese muslims have extremely high rates of welfare dependence, criminality, and many possess attitude that are hostile to our way of life. has any anthopological research been conducted into the cultural framework of these societies and considered how they would interact with our own? where is the advantage for wider society in sourcing further immigrants from these areas when they have statistically proven to have trouble integrating?

Another problem with race-based policies is that it sets a dangerous precedent.

and problems with open policies also set a dangerous precedent. europe is in a shocking state at the moment because of their naive approach to importing large numbers of uneducated peasants from parts of the world that have vastly different cultural values and ideologies to the west. there are numerous social problems in the major european capitals with immigrants including no-go areas, obscene amounts of rape, honour killings, riots that last for weeks and open calls for the destruction of the west, execution of homosexuals and jews and the implemetation of sharia law. these are major problems that must be acknowledged and addressed but instead people still insist on pretending it's not happening and we're all one big happy welfare state funded family.

What you are saying is that because race A is more likely to commit crime then you must ban prevent race A from entering the country.

at the very least their numbers should be severely limited and their settlement closely managed and preferably dispersed to prevent ghettoisation and associated anti-social behaviours. or yeah, just don't let them in the first place.

However, men are more likely than women to commit crime, so then should government policy prevent men from entering the country? Should government policy subsidize the abortion of male foetuses to reduce crime?

now you're just being stupid. we have the right to manage our population in a way which is in the best interests of wider society, not just the ego and guilt of certain ideological elitists.

Before your race-based policies can be applied you must address their obvious scientific and statistical problems

and these problems are? statistically certain intakes have brought in large numbers of criminals, potential terrorists and welfare parasites, that's the problem. you are being far too simplistic and just waving the race card around without taking into the account the glaring problems certain immigration patterns have introduced to this country and other countries throughout the world.

I think it is interesting that you are intolerant of migrants who follow intolerant ideologies

well unlike so many others i'm not a deluded rainbow fantasy idealist that thinks that if we all just sit down and share our feelings we'll end up in a global group hug. this utopian dreamland will never happen and to think it will (in our lifetime at least) not only displays an astounding ignorance of history but also a complete lack of understanding of human nature.

Furthermore, you talk about "incompatible cultures." What do you mean by this?

have a look around at the state of the world. maybe you are aware that there are cultures that subjugate women and relegate them to second class citizenship, that arrange marriages with children, perform genital mutilations, accept honour killings, murder homosexuals and stand for a single totalitarian ideology that is committed to world conquest? or maybe you aren't, in which case you're going to have trouble understanding what i am saying.

What have you got against Islam? Islam is very similar to Christianity

you are so completely and utterly wrong on this point and your ignorance on this simple and fundamental issue also impacts upon your opinions on immigration in general. if you don't know anything about islam and its ideology then you can't see how it is incompatible with western society and you definately won't be able to see why immigration policy should be taking this into account when sourcing our immigrant intake.

 

[Spanning Tree]

i'd suggest more along the lines of culture and ideology. for example immigrants from sudan and lebanese muslims have extremely high rates of welfare dependence, criminality, and many possess attitude that are hostile to our way of life. has any anthopological research been conducted into the cultural framework of these societies and considered how they would interact with our own? where is the advantage for wider society in sourcing further immigrants from these areas when they have statistically proven to have trouble integrating?

The examples you give are Lebanese Muslims and Sudanese. These are countries and religions. Do you think Muslims should be banned from coming to Australia? What about the Muslims who are not criminals? What about the non-Muslims who are criminals?

In itself, coming from Sudan does not make you a criminal but it may make you more likely to be a criminal.

Similarly, in itself, being male does not make you a criminal but it makes you more likely to be a criminal, but like I said do you think government should subsidize abortion of male fetuses or prevent men from coming into Australia? That's the precedent I'm talking about. If you send away one group of people because they are statistically more likely to be criminals, many innocent people are going to be labeled as criminals. Every one of us belongs to an infinite number of groups. It is highly likely that at least one of the groups you belong to makes you statistically more likely to be a criminal. For example, I belong to many groups: I am male, under 30, and over six feet tall. Being male, I am statistically more like to be a criminal. Being under 30, I am statistically more likely to be a criminal. Being tall, I am statistically less likely to be a criminal. Don't you think it is unfair to blame people based on being male, being young, or being short when in of itself these characteristics do not cause criminality but may be statistically related to criminality? The same applies to religion or nationality. If you block based on religion or nationality because of statistical correlation you must also block by gender, age, and height for the same reason.

now you're just being stupid. we have the right to manage our population in a way which is in the best interests of wider society, not just the ego and guilt of certain ideological elitists.

Managing the population in a way that best serves the interests of the society--isn't this the definition of eugenics? Is that what you suggesting?

Even if all immigrants were blocked, there will still be cultural conflict within Australia. This is because of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows individuals within Australia to form independent ideas or opinions that may differ to that of the mainstream. You spoke before about Lebanese Muslims. Islam as a religion may conflict with Christianity. The god in Islam is one single god whereas the god in Christianity is one god acting in three ways (the concept of the trinity). However, even within Christian teaching there is conflict, e.g. some Christians believe in the Pope while others don't. If you believe that differences in culture be resolved by holding up one single culture as the gold standard, then which is it? If not Islam, is it Christianity? But Christianity is not one unified, consistent religion. You have to be specific about what type of Christianity, whether it is Catholicism, Anglicanism, Anabaptism, Presbytarianism, Mormonism, etc.

 

[helicart]

Managing the population in a way that best serves the interests of the society--isn't this the definition of eugenics? Is that what you suggesting?

So are you suggesting multiculturalism has superior social and economic outcomes to societies based on one dominant culture, or indeed, one predominant race?

If so, provide examples.

 

[disarray]

The examples you give are Lebanese Muslims and Sudanese. These are countries and religions. Do you think Muslims should be banned from coming to Australia?

their numbers should be severely limited yes. an historical study of islam, an understanding of its nature and a look at the bloody borders it maintains today leads me to believe that importing large numbers of muslims would not be healthy for our society if we wish to maintain it this way. maybe you should see how "enriched" europe has become through muslim immigration?

What about the non-Muslims who are criminals?

deal with them through the courts, and if over time a pattern emerges that a specific group of migrants is hugely overrepresented in criminal statistics then adjust the level and implementation of their migration. effective policy must be adapable.

Similarly, in itself, being male does not make you a criminal but it makes you more likely to be a criminal, but like I said do you think government should subsidize abortion of male fetuses or prevent men from coming into Australia?

yeah abort male foetuses, does that sound like a good idea to you? your word play and semantics is impressive but lacks common sense. the importation of large numbers of uneducated culturally incompatible people into liberal western democracies has been proven to be detrimental for the wider society. you can twist words and philosophise till the cows come home but it doesn't change the simple facts on the ground.

in reality its all about looking at the facts and managing the policy based on what is actually happening, not what we wish was happening.

If you send away one group of people because they are statistically more likely to be criminals, many innocent people are going to be labeled as criminals.

well we're not actually sending anyone away, we are preventing them from entering, and we have the right and the responsibility to do what is best for our society first. maybe you can tell me - what is the magic number of lousy immigrants we have to tolerate? say we take in 100 immigrants and statistically X amount are criminals and Y amount are welfare dependent and Z amount follow an ideology that thinks its ok to impose their own value systems on society - how many should we tolerate for the sake of tolerance?

Every one of us belongs to an infinite number of groups. It is highly likely that at least one of the groups you belong to makes you statistically more likely to be a criminal. Don't you think it is unfair to blame people based on being male, being young, or being short when in of itself these characteristics do not cause criminality but may be statistically related to criminality?

this is just playing word games. we have statistics available that certain groups are X amount more likely to be criminals and Y amount more likely to be drains on society (although they are very difficult to dig up because they aren't "in the public interest"). sensible policy would be to not import more of these groups that have a higher tendency towards anti-social behaviour. there are plenty of immigrant sources who have successfully integrated into wider australian society over long periods of time - why not continue with a working formula? and as for those that are already here, then policy will need to be created to manage them, even though people will cry racism.

and once again our right to manage who comes into this country supercedes the right of foreigners free access to our society. from immigration policy to border defence it is our right to say who shall come in, how many can come and how they should arrive /cue john howard.

The same applies to religion or nationality. If you block based on religion or nationality because of statistical correlation you must also block by gender, age, and height for the same reason.

why?

Managing the population in a way that best serves the interests of the society--isn't this the definition of eugenics? Is that what you suggesting?

yeah i'm down for eugenics. eugenics is a big word though with many layers. do you think retards should breed if they will have retarded children? do you think we should import large numbers of radicalised militants who think honour killings are a-ok and your daughter deserved to be raped if she wears a mini skirt? you know, cats and uncovered meat and all that.

Even if all immigrants were blocked, there will still be cultural conflict within Australia. This is because of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows individuals within Australia to form independent ideas or opinions that may differ to that of the mainstream.

yup thats cool, but thats an in-house problem for us to manage. this thread is about importing cultural conflicts from outside australia.

Islam as a religion may conflict with Christianity. The god in Islam is one single god whereas the god in Christianity is one god acting in three ways (the concept of the trinity). However, even within Christian teaching there is conflict

look you can tu coque all you want about christianity, but if you have any knowledge of islam you know that it is fundamentally different from christianity (or any other religion) in very important way. islam isn't just a religion - it is a complete social, financial and ideological system divinely mandated to spread, conquer and impose its values upon the entire planet.

this is where all the "oh the crusades", "the bible is evil too", "but what about so and so" arguments fall down - no other religion is a complete system designed to control every facet of a person life and take over the whole world. islam is, and this is why its dangerous. and finally people are starting to wake up to the fact.

 

[Julia]

yeah abort male foetuses, does that sound like a good idea to you? your word play and semantics is impressive but lacks common sense

Spanning Tree, I have to agree with disarray's comment above. You are attempting to muddy the waters with emotive meanderings.
I don't even agree with disarray that your word play is impressive.

I'm curious to know the background of your impassioned support of the import to Australia of cultures incompatible with our own. What, specifically, do you feel Muslims from societies opposed to western ideology have to contribute to Australia?

 

[Calanen]

Paying the tax we pay is a result of government inefficiency. Minorities or illegal immigrants/asylum seekers? We're not talking about minorities, and I'd be surprised if they were over-represented anyway.

About 60% of the budget is welfare payments. I certainly could use a 60% income tax cut. Then on top of that amount is the bureaucracy that administers the welfare. Get rid of welfare, get rid of a huge burden on people who actually want to work. Living on welfare has become a lifestyle choice to 'opt out' of working now. I don't mind people who want to opt out, but not with my money. End the welfare state. Or, if you do not want to end the welfare state - we could make it optional so your taxes go to fund it.

Why should I pay for some ingrates to live in a housing commission home, drink beer and watch cricket all day? Screw that. I'd get them all out on a chain gang working on the highways at gunpoint.

 

[Calanen]

this is where all the "oh the crusades", "the bible is evil too", "but what about so and so" arguments fall down - no other religion is a complete system designed to control every facet of a person life and take over the whole world. islam is, and this is why its dangerous. and finally people are starting to wake up to the fact.

This is correct. Importing Islam here is a bit like importing former Nazis from the Third Reich, but instead of asking them to renounce supremacism, we tell them to enjoy their rich diversity. Their culture that we have to have 'tolerance' for, has no tolerance for us. It says we have to live as their slaves or dhimmis, and that they must spend every waking day, acting to destroy our government, courts, laws, culture, beliefs, religion and institutions - which are all an abomination and vile in the eyes of allah. There is only one system, the perfect system - a divine system - sharia. Everything else must be smashed for the glory of allah.

Guess who is right in the way for a good smashing on the road to jihad?

I understand though that the hard core lefties will never get it. They wouldn't get it if someone drove a car bomb into their living room screaming allah akbar - they'd still convince themselves it was mossad impersonating some muslims.

The people I need to get the message too - are the good middle class folk - who just don't know any better. They've been spun a web of intricate lies about the supposedly benign nature of Islam - which largely came about at America's behest to keep the Saudi Kingdom happy and the flow of petroleum going. That deal has to end - so the bargain with the devil does too.

Wherever Islam is, there is violence and warfare against non-muslims. This is because, Islam says, that it needs to destroy everything else and reign supreme over you - because Allah commands it. That's great and all - but I don't want to live under sharia.

It is too late for Europe now. All of Europe has the disease of Islam and is like a man riddled with cancer. Australia has the opportunity to prevent this sickness from taking hold - but it must act now.

 

[rederob]

It is too late for Europe now. All of Europe has the disease of Islam and is like a man riddled with cancer. Australia has the opportunity to prevent this sickness from taking hold - but it must act now.

I underestimated you.
Which of your views is not the same as Hitler's?

 

[Happy]

Just yesterday I saw first half of program where 6 people (3 non-muslims and 3 muslims) took month in muslim sanctuary.

Wander if anybody saw the end part, but what struck me was statement of one of the 5 fundamental pillars of muslim faith, that there is only one god and one religion.
Unlike other religions that accept coexistence of all other religions and seek some dialog.

Our leaders should have a closer look at this dogma, as it sounds more like war statement, not religious principle.

And if they succeed, where does it leave the rest of Australian multicultural society?

 

[Bobby]

I underestimated you.
Which of your views is not the same as Hitler's?

Calanen made his views clear , you seem not capable of saying or knowing what limits to place on these boat loads of Illegal immigrants ?

Now try to answer this without getting personal if you can ?

 

[helicart]

I underestimated you.
Which of your views is not the same as Hitler's?

Why is the Pakistani military choosing not to vehemently defend Pakistan against the Taliban Red?

Many say it is because they don't want to fight their Muslim brothers....no matter how extreme they are.....

And you want this for Australia????

If Australia ends up 25% devout Muslim, and the other 75% are not devout anything because they are essentially atheists full of existential angst and guilt for not being as ignorant as some Somalian hunter gatherer, then what have we got Red?

We've got 25% of the country who are clear about what they want, have a goal, and will defend it to the death. I'd put my money on them achieving their goal more than the 75% who know not what they want.

 

[rederob]

Calanen made his views clear , you seem not capable of saying or knowing what limits to place on these boat loads of Illegal immigrants ?

Now try to answer this without getting personal if you can ?

You need to read what I and several others say and try to understand the meaning of these words.
Most illegal immigrants fly into Australia.
Most illegal immigrants are quickly deported.
Legitimate asylum seekers have the protection of our laws.

Unlike you, I do not repeat lies or try to defend them.