Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Resurrection of all-time best threads

Moderator: Moderator

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby dBrother » Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:02 am

section8 wrote:What's the deal with the asylum seekers? It seems to be a major concern, but I read it's something like 6000 people/year. Is that small a number really something to get upset about?


We take something like 15- 20,000 refugees a year under refugee resettlement program, the 6000 illegal queue jumpers arriving by boat usually end up accepted into this program, leaving only 9-14000 places for genuine refugees applying from camps in the first safe country of refuge as they're meant to.

So It's really unfair on the refugees doing the right thing.
.

Stew Ingredient
Online
User avatar
Posts: 5690
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby matt_melb » Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:14 am

Where did the 6000 figure come from, Section8?

Recent newspaper reports suggest it's increased to more like 20,000pa.

And perhaps 1000 drowning in the attempt.

ETA: this site http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/stat-as.php gives the number of asylum seekers arriving by boat in 2012 as 17,202. It will be even more this year.

Nutty Upside Down Cake
User avatar
Posts: 10242
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:37 pm
Location: Down Unda

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby janieblack » Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:23 am

dBrother wrote:
section8 wrote:What's the deal with the asylum seekers? It seems to be a major concern, but I read it's something like 6000 people/year. Is that small a number really something to get upset about?


We take something like 15- 20,000 refugees a year under refugee resettlement program, the 6000 illegal queue jumpers arriving by boat usually end up accepted into this program, leaving only 9-14000 places for genuine refugees applying from camps in the first safe country of refuge as they're meant to.

So It's really unfair on the refugees doing the right thing.


Arriving by boat is a legitimate way to seek asylum.
Having sex in an elevator is wrong on so many levels

Stew Ingredient
Online
User avatar
Posts: 5690
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby matt_melb » Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:47 am

janieblack wrote:Arriving by boat is a legitimate way to seek asylum.

Though:

1) The 100,000 or so refugees in KL awaiting re-settlement probably don't think so, and

2) A system that results in 1000 people a year drowning is not too good.

Nutty Upside Down Cake
User avatar
Posts: 10242
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:37 pm
Location: Down Unda

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby janieblack » Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:09 am

It's not a "system". It is simply a truth that people arrive in various ways (on land, by plane, by boat, on donkeys, carried by others, transfered by the UNHCR, etc) to places they are given asylum. Claiming asylum on-shore in Australia is not illegal and is not queue jumping or all the other things it has been badged as in recent years. It wasn't illegal for the Jews, for the SEA 'boat people' and it still isn't illegal for people fleeing Afghanistan or CAR.

People dying at sea is a reflection on the lengths people will go to to escape their situation *there* versus a failure of asylum *here*. It shouldn't happen but it will al long as there are more refugees than places they can resettle. Which will, sadly, be forever it seems. Especially if we keep being more protective about our borders.

Anyhow, I suspect this was for the other thread (on immigrants taking over), not this one. And I am so weary of immigration/asylum threads. It makes me feel huge sadness, tbh.
Having sex in an elevator is wrong on so many levels

Stew Ingredient
Online
User avatar
Posts: 5690
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby matt_melb » Mon Jun 03, 2013 5:15 am

It is a system.

As a private individual, you naturally feel compassion for the individuals affected. The government, however, is not a private individual has to accept responsibilities for the consequences of its policy settings. If those policy settings are resulting in 1000 people a year drowning, then the policy settings need to change.

Nutty Upside Down Cake
User avatar
Posts: 10242
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:37 pm
Location: Down Unda

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby janieblack » Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:34 am

Many, many refugees die in camps too. So do we "accept responsibility" and shut that 'system' down too? Even more potential refugees are killed even before they escape their situation to claim refugee status. What do we do about that?

Deaths at sea are not a consequence of the government policy. They are a consequence of people fleeing situations worse than those presented by taking leaky boats to a country of potential refuge.
Having sex in an elevator is wrong on so many levels

Stew Ingredient
Online
User avatar
Posts: 5690
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby matt_melb » Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:44 am

janieblack wrote:Deaths at sea are not a consequence of the government policy. They are a consequence of people fleeing situations worse than those presented by taking leaky boats to a country of potential refuge.

I'm quite shocked that anyone could absolve the government of responsibility like that.

But to pass over the main point and focus on a subsidiary one - are you saying, then, that life as a refugee in Kuala Lumpur awaiting UNHCR assignment is a 'worse situation' than the refugee camps in Nauru and Manus Island?

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 11967
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:04 am

During the 'Pacific Solution' there were almost no boats (you already know this Janie - it's silly that you are pretending again that you don't) and now that the Rudd and then the Gillard governments have abandoned that policy there are hundreds.

Clearly the government is responsible for the drowning deaths of hundreds. They knew what would happen and they went ahead anyway.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby dBrother » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:42 am

janie, theres at least two billion people in the world living on $2 a day or less, they all probably would like to live somewhere else than where they currently are. truth is we cant fit them in without lowering our standard of living to very close to theirs, and why should we?

as a society they should be sleeping in the bed they've made themselves not just jumping on the coat tails of some other societys hard work and success over the decades

as an australian born into a society that has spent generations improving its own social system and limiting its population growth to a more enviromentally & economically friendly level than, say, some third world shit hole, i don't really see why we should be taking in the third world overflow of humanity when we're not really responsible for the mistakes of their past, and war , pestilence, and famine are all symptoms of an overpopulated country, not some suprising unexpected exception.
.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 13299
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:28 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Vince » Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:52 am

dBrother wrote:janie, theres at least two billion people in the world living on $2 a day or less, they all probably would like to live somewhere else than where they currently are. truth is we cant fit them in without lowering our standard of living to very close to theirs, and why should we?


Because you have that standard of living not based on your own worth but because you keep them out - which is immoral.You are an alien people who took other peoples land but you now have decided that that kind of behaviour is unacceptable on no other basisi than it doesnt work to your advantage anymore
"Do you ski?"
"Do I look like I can ski you fuckhead, I can barely walk."

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby dBrother » Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:57 am

Vince wrote:
dBrother wrote:janie, theres at least two billion people in the world living on $2 a day or less, they all probably would like to live somewhere else than where they currently are. truth is we cant fit them in without lowering our standard of living to very close to theirs, and why should we?


Because you have that standard of living not based on your own worth but because you keep them out - which is immoral.You are an alien people who took other peoples land but you now have decided that that kind of behaviour is unacceptable on no other basisi than it doesnt work to your advantage anymore


'bout it, yer
.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 54723
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby polardude1 » Mon Jun 03, 2013 12:45 pm

Debrother
as an australian born into a society that has spent generations improving its own social system and limiting its population growth to a more enviromentally & economically friendly level than

Are you saying that the Australian govenrment has a popualtion control policy?
Postby Citizen Baba » Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:57 pm
"I got a bad case of giardia in Burma too. Shit my hotel bed in Bangkok"

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby dBrother » Mon Jun 03, 2013 1:29 pm

I'm saying australian society has learned to control its birth rate to an enviromentally and economically responsible level, whether through the mass education of wimen or economic factors I couldn't say.
And I'm saying why the fuck should we feel we have to share our wealth with less responsible society's who have chosen to breed like rabbits, outstriped their own countries natural resources, and then wonder why there's nothing left to eat.
The choice for many things is quality verses quantity, we chose quality, why should those that have chosen, as a society, quantity be allowed to have their cake and eat it too at our expense.

I mean I'm all for a bit of foreign aid, maybe educate the firstborn on condition there is no second born, maybe contraceptives in the food aid, I'm open minded, but accepting every overbred peasant that chooses to land on our shores is just national suicide. IMHO
.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 54723
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby polardude1 » Mon Jun 03, 2013 1:33 pm

And I'm saying why the fuck should we feel we have to share our wealth with less responsible society's who have chosen to breed like rabbits, outstriped their own countries natural resources, and then wonder why there's nothing left to eat.
The choice for many things is quality verses quantity, we chose quality, why should those that have chosen, as a society, quantity be allowed to have their cake and eat it too at our expense.

The funny thing is that like the US and Canada, many of iAustarliasn's citizens are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Many of them came for poverty or political strife lookig for a better life
Postby Citizen Baba » Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:57 pm
"I got a bad case of giardia in Burma too. Shit my hotel bed in Bangkok"

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby dBrother » Mon Jun 03, 2013 1:47 pm

Same here , I'm first gen aussie, so I can see the irony in what I say, but hey what can you do.

Hard fact is that 7 billion people simply cannot live at our level of non renewable natural resource consumption, I for one don't intend to share everything equally- as its back to the quality v quantity thing, what is life about ? 7 billion souls living in abject poverty when all is equally divided? Or people having a choice of not simply overbreeding until there's no slice of the pie left .

As a continent we have the same size pie (a pie of natural resources-wealth) per square mile as any other landmass, maybe less even, but instead of being inhabited by 100's of millions, if not billions, therefore splitting the pie into a billion slices, i.e fuck all each, we have only 23 million way to share it , currently. That's why we can live the good life

Again Quality over quantity, the pie is never gunna get any bigger, non renewable natural resources are funny like that.
So inviting the teeming billions to sail over and stay is very much to our own detriment
.

Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 41616
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby eric84 » Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:14 pm

flojin wrote:One could almost infer that Australians don't get upset about whites getting an advantage by claiming to be indigenous precisely because they're white!


How about you, flojin? It's essentially the same system in the US...do you get upset about it?
Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 6329
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 5:38 am
Location: LES, NYC, USA

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby flojin » Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:52 pm

eric84 wrote:
flojin wrote:One could almost infer that Australians don't get upset about whites getting an advantage by claiming to be indigenous precisely because they're white!


How about you, flojin? It's essentially the same system in the US...do you get upset about it?


I don't get upset about, but not because they're white. That doesn't factor. I'm also OK with immigrants and refugees being helped, even if they're not white.
Maxwell wrote:Tell me why I should care about ethics when the democrats don't.

Nutty Upside Down Cake
User avatar
Posts: 10242
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:37 pm
Location: Down Unda

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby janieblack » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:32 am

I'm first gen aussie, so I can see the irony in what I say, but hey what can you do.


This is it, eh? The "I got mine, Jack, so fuck off" argument... And sadly, that's the best the anti-migration folk have.

I am fine with not having an open door immigration policy (and we don't). I am less fine with being stingy with the humanitarian aid, with detaining refugees (especially children), with leaving the job to poor countries like Tanzania or Indonesia or Lebanon (as is outlined here and many other places)...

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten ... 765725.htm

Ausralians need to learn to differentiate between "immigrant" and "refugee". They are two different resettlement schemes with vastly different criteria. No one is getting in as a "refugee" in Australia just because their home country is poor...
Having sex in an elevator is wrong on so many levels

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby The_Macedonian » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:46 am

polardude1 wrote:The funny thing is that like the US and Canada, many of iAustarliasn's citizens are immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Many of them came for poverty or political strife lookig for a better life


They sure did, but the Australian refugee program was different then Polardude.

My own parents came to Australia as political refugees. They had their immigration papers stamped at an Australian consulate overseas.They didn't just barge in on a boat and make themselves comfortable like the present day illegal immigrants.

And, before they got their papers stamped, the Australian government officials checked over their qualifications very carefully to assure themselves that, even though they were utterly penniless and unable to speak a word of English, they would, eventually, be able to pay their way. Since my father had a degree which was recognized by the American Institute of Engineers ( the relevant Aussie benchmark in the fifties), he passed the sniff test. But just in case he didn't, he had to line up an Australian resident sponsor who would pay for him in his initial days and months in the country in case he was to become a drain on the state. And, to top it all off, in those days many refugees had to work for 2 years building roads and bridges in the Outback, which many in retrospect found bloody good English practice.

Its that sort of governmental attitude in the late 40's, fifties, and sixties,which saw Australia manage to successfully settle more immigrants , ( including a huge number of refugees from Poland, the Baltic states, , Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Hungary), as a proportion of its original 1945 population than other country in the world except for Israel, over the same time period.

But these days ? Its a fucking dog's breakfast. Nobody checks the people coming in on these boats for their ability to contribute to Australia. Their subsequent utility to the host country is only now etting to be measured in a systemic way, and initial results don't look encouraging.

I'll see if I can dig up some figures The Australian newspaper published last year and put them up here, but they make for distressing reading.
Last edited by The_Macedonian on Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby dBrother » Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:07 am

janieblack wrote:
I'm first gen aussie, so I can see the irony in what I say, but hey what can you do.


This is it, eh? The "I got mine, Jack, so fuck off" argument... And sadly, that's the best the anti-migration folk


No, books have been written on the subject of why Australia is over populated already , try 'overloaded Australia' or 'dick smiths population puzzle' for a start, both intelligent well written books.

Basically all refugees are suffering the symptoms and results of overpopulation in their homelands, whether the results of overpopulation were war or famine it was all due to to many people trying to occupy a finite amount of land, the answer isn't to open up this finite amount of land to them aswell.

Maybe educating their women folk about birth control is a better solution than keep letting a token few win the lottery and resettle here, in the long run dragging us down with them.

There's no doubt that a few thousand here and there a year wouldn't make much difference to us, but the total number of potential refugees in the world is in the millions, 100's of millions even.

IMHO the world is fucked from overpopulation and resulting over extraction/ consumption/ destruction of natural resources. Encouraging people to keep having 6 child family's by taking in the excess population overflows untill we are eventually dragged down to their level of existence is not going to help the matter.
No matter how warm and fuzzy inside it makes you feel.
Last edited by dBrother on Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:11 am, edited 4 times in total.
.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby The_Macedonian » Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:07 am

Here you go Polardude.

This is the relevant article I referred to above when I noted that the present boat people refugee program is totally different from the refugee program Australia ran from 48 to 68.
The previous one worked, the present situation is a massive waste of taxpayer's money and leads to very pernicious economic and social outcomes, even decades after illegal immigrants are actually granted Australian permanent residency.


End the boatpeople-Centrelink cycle

by:Judith Sloan, Contributing Economics Editor
From:The Australian
September 18, 201212:00AM

FREE-market economists support free trade in goods and services. Free-market economists also support the free movement of capital and labour. But free-market economists warn against the corrosive and adverse effects of government-provided income support and welfare services on people's incentives to participate in the labour market and to improve their economic lot through their own efforts.

I fit comfortably into the category of free-market economist. Not surprisingly, I find the following comment of one of the doyens of free-market economics, Nobel Prize winner Professor Gary Becker, very persuasive.

"Since I am a free-trader, readers might expect my preferred alternative to the present system (of controlled migration to the US) to be 19th-century-style unlimited immigration. I would support that if we lived in the 19th-century world where government spending was tiny. But governments now spend huge amounts on medical care, retirement, education and other benefits and entitlements. Experience demonstrates that, in our political system, it is impossible to prevent immigrants gaining access to these benefits."


This comment applies no less to Australia. Immigrants, particularly those entering under the humanitarian visa (refugee) category, are attracted to Australia in part because of the generous safety net provided by governments. Free health care, free education, income support - these sorts of luxuries are potent magnets for refugees when seeking another country in which to live. It is a form of welfare arbitrage - safety from persecution with the additional advantage of a raft of government-provided benefits.

No doubt, I will be accused at this point of being heartless and ignorant. Surely refugees bring all sorts of economic benefits to Australia and these should form part of the equation when devising the size of the humanitarian quota. After all, refugees have shown determination to leave their homelands and, in the case of those who arrive by boat, to hand over money to people-smugglers to expedite their permanent entry to Australia. Does this sort of energetic resolve not correlate with subsequent economic success in Australia?

Sadly, the figures point to the exact opposite. They show that refugees have very low rates of labour force participation and extremely high rates of welfare dependence, even years after being granted permanent residence. And these figures are the official ones - admittedly released without fanfare - of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

The report, Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals: Report of findings, was released last year by the department. The report's bland title is a give-away - vacuous, alliterative titles for government reports are virtually de rigueur these days. (Think: Smarter Manufacturing for a Smarter Australia.) The results on settlement outcomes are ugly.

Using the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia, the research describes the position of the three key groups of migrants five years after settlement: skilled, family and humanitarian.

In keeping with the findings of previous research, it is absolutely clear that refugees fare very badly in terms of employment and financial self-sufficiency. And note that this study was conducted during a period of low overall unemployment.

For example, the employment rate of humanitarian migrants from Afghanistan was recorded at only 9 per cent - note this is not the unemployment rate - five years after settlement and nearly 94 per cent of households from Afghanistan received Centrelink payments.

According to the report, "Afghans have a different settlement experience compared with most other cultural groups, such as having poorer English skills and lower qualifications levels. Yet they are more likely to borrow money, obtain mortgages and experience difficulties in paying them."

Those from Iraq did little better, with 12 per cent employed and 93 per cent of households in receipt of Centrelink payments. Interestingly, those who did best in the humanitarian group were from Central and West African countries such as Sierra Leone.

Note that these refugees are the least likely to have arrived by boat.

For the sake of typical bureaucratic "balance", the report notes that "given that we are exploring only the first five years of settlement in this study, [The low proportion in employment] is not a surprising result as many humanitarian entrants are strongly focused on creating a new life, and studying for a qualification is an important step in this journey".

But the comparisons with those entering under the other visa categories - and who are also focused on creating a new life - are stark.

Whereas the overall proportion of humanitarian migrant households in receipt of Centrelink payment was 85 per cent, the figure for the family group was 38 per cent and 28 per cent for the skilled group.

In other words, humanitarian migrant households were three times more likely to receive Centrelink payments than skilled migrant households, five years after settlement. (Note that skilled migrants are not entitled to receive Centrelink payments for the first two years of their residence.) Moreover, skilled migrants were more than five times likely to be in employment than refugees.

So how should policy-makers interpret these results?

The first point to note is that there must be a strict limit to the numbers allowed to enter under the humanitarian visa category given the drain on public finances.

The fact that the numbers were kept at about 13,750 for so long probably is a reflection of this reality. The recent increase in the quota to 20,000 is likely to cause an additional strain on both the federal and state budgets.

The second point is to open the debate about whether a portion of the humanitarian intake should be reserved for those prepared to pay a bond to obtain permanent residence.

Indeed, this has been suggested by Gary Becker. "Given these realities of free immigration, the best alternative to the present system is charging a price that clears the market. That is why I believe countries should sell the right to immigrate."

We have clear evidence that some refugees are prepared to pay people-smugglers to facilitate a speedy entry to Australia.

It therefore seems an obvious policy alternative to allocate a certain number of humanitarian places to proven refugees who are prepared to pay and/or forgo welfare benefits for a period of time.

There is clearly not a particularly strong correlation between refugee status and ability to pay, given the numbers of refugees who have paid people-smugglers to reach Australia.

Surely it would be preferable that this money is paid to the Australian government, rather than to people-smugglers offering travel on rickety boats.

The money raised could be used to benefit refugees who cannot pay.

In the light of the arrival of over 2000 asylum-seekers by boat since the government announced the change of policy to deter boat arrivals - a policy which looks set to fail - there is a clear and urgent case for some lateral thinking.

stewpid colonial
User avatar
Posts: 11263
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 4:10 am
Location: Darwin, Australia

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby jono_in_adelaide » Tue Jun 04, 2013 2:41 am

Australia has (I think) the worlds largest humanitarian intake, and has a system in place for selecting who comes under that progeam - and it seems that most Austraklians would like our refugee intake to be coordinated by the UNHCR and our Immigration Department, not be based on self selection and who can afford to get on a people smugglers boat
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby emmeff » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:51 am

janieblack wrote:
matt_melb wrote:I think he's planning to repeal the bit of that law that makes it a crime to 'offend' someone, yes.

I'd be ok with that.

I still think there should be recourse, however, if someone calls you (by name) a fraud in the media/public arena without any proof. That seems like slander to me...

How can you support a law against slander if you don't accept 'offence' as a cause for litigation? Aim for consistency, at least.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby emmeff » Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:06 am

Vince wrote:
eric84 wrote:Ok, guess this has to be repeated but here goes:

1) First nations in OZ, Canada and the US have criteria to determine who qualifies as aboriginal. Aboriginal geroups have agreed to these criteria. It isn't some visual test

2)The benefits you get from being aboriginal aren't all that fantastic when you look at the conditions many FNS live in


That wasnt what i was asking. i dont give a shit if these people want to think of themselves as aborigines 9although I hope they dont get too many advantages for making that claim)

Make up your mind:

The people in those photos are NOT Aborigine and to think they are is ridiculous and if they ckaim they are or if anyone thinks they are they are utterly deluded.

If you're so intent on identifying people by their appearances you could argue the same for vast numbers who claim Jewish and most kinds of European ancestry. Why limit yourself to the examples in this thread?

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby emmeff » Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:50 am

matt_melb wrote:It is a system.

As a private individual, you naturally feel compassion for the individuals affected. The government, however, is not a private individual has to accept responsibilities for the consequences of its policy settings. If those policy settings are resulting in 1000 people a year drowning, then the policy settings need to change.

The 'system' is called 'free enterprise', in which entrepreneurs create services for a perceived market. What should the Australian government do about shonky middlemen in SE Asia that delude and defraud asylum seekers and the skippers of unseaworthy craft? Australians think this is a big, fat, scary deal because we like to believe that the surrounding seas give us insulation from the unpleasantness of the rest of the world. We have an island fortress mentality. And successive governments have responded to this inane belief by inanely but continuously withdrawing the 'migration zone'. It won't be long before the only available migration zone is a small area in Alice Springs encompassing a town camp.

There's nothing illegal about arriving by boat. There is no queue to jump.

Europe is the region that currently attracts the largest number of refugees. In 2012 there was a huge jump in applications, especially in Germany, France and Sweden. The applications to Switzerland is on a par with those to the UK. The number of asylum seekers who cross borders by irregular means here is many times those that arrive in Australia. They climb under fences, they ride (and die) inside and under lorries, they arrive at Lampedusa in the Mediterranean on leaky vessels.

Which European government is responsible for the faulty policy settings that has generated this upsurge? It must be told of its errors by News Ltd papers in Australia!

Understand that the flow of asylum seekers will continue to grow in coming years. Partly because of the unresolvable conflict in Syria, but also as result of the withdrawal of international forces in Afghanistan next year. Which government was responsible for the policy settings that sent Australians into that country to help foster that mess? Australia has a debt to pay, I think.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby dBrother » Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:00 am

Very good article Macedonian, be nice if some of these philanthropists above would read it and take note.
.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby emmeff » Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:13 am

Why?

(1) It's written by Judith Sloan, an avowed propagandist of the Ayn Rand school.

(2) Where's the surprise that immigrants selected for their skills and material assets have a better settlement experience than those who arrive with empty pockets and perhaps no locally-recognised credentials?

Stew Ingredient
Online
User avatar
Posts: 5690
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby matt_melb » Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:00 pm

emmeff wrote:How can you support a law against slander if you don't accept 'offence' as a cause for litigation? Aim for consistency, at least.

"Offence" is not grounds for a slander action, at least not in Australia. It's for damage to reputation.

Stew Ingredient
Online
User avatar
Posts: 5690
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby matt_melb » Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:07 pm

emmeff wrote:And successive governments have responded to this inane belief by inanely but continuously withdrawing the 'migration zone'. It won't be long before the only available migration zone is a small area in Alice Springs encompassing a town camp.

There's nothing illegal about arriving by boat. There is no queue to jump.

Yes, the migration zone stuff is stupid. We should deal with it by withdrawing from the Refugee Convention. And make our own laws to deal with immigration. It's crazy that we consider ourselves bound by something designed for people crossing land borders in Europe, when we're located in a region of countries that don't belong to it.

Arriving in Australia without a visa is illegal. Have you read the Convention? It says that countries must not act against illegal arrivals who claim refugee status. The wording assumes that the arrivals are illegal.

There is a correct underlying principle you have in mind - people are entitled to claim refugee status and have their cases heard, whether they arrive legally or illegally - but mindless "not illegal" slogan you have repeated is wrong.

As I've said before, the people awaiting resettlement in KL consider there's a queue, and that they're in it. Why do you disagree?

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 3929
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby The_Macedonian » Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:52 pm

emmeff wrote:(1) It's written by Judith Sloan, an avowed propagandist of the Ayn Rand school.


So what ? No matter the journalist's political leanings, it references the factual results of a report from the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The facts in that report are not in dispute, and are so shocking that they actually need clarification as to their meaning. To wit, for example, the Australian Labour force participation rate by Afghan refugees, 5 years after being granted residency in Australia,is 9%. As Judith Sloan states, that is not the unemployment rate, that is the employment rate of Afghans in Australia. The other 90% are sitting on their arse sucking on the federal government teat. Why are we letting these people in ?

Yes, the migration zone stuff is stupid. We should deal with it by withdrawing from the Refugee Convention. And make our own laws to deal with immigration.


Yes, I agree 100%. The Refugge convention that Australia signed up to is completely outdated and has nothing to do with the present world we all live in, though it does allow a lot of green/left types to stay busy continually bleating that "claiming asylum after landing on Australia's shore in a boat is not illegal". Well, it bloody well should be, and this needs to be clearly understood by all potential immigrants to Australia.

I suspect that there is a great deal of support in numerous electorates around the world for withdrawing from this kind of signed committment, and it will probably be put up for serious discussion in the UN and suchlike bodies within 10 years. The present situation is simply untenable, because its asinine.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby dBrother » Thu Jun 06, 2013 7:51 pm

The whole refugee convention was written up with the voyage of the St. Louis (the voyage of the damned) in

Ie European Jews trying to escape a genuine threat of organised genocide by Europeans , who were at the time refused refuge to other countries of European heritage (Cuba , USA ect...)

The world has changed since then

The people that wrote the convention did not intend for it to cover the swarming billions of developing worlders who like to think they qualify because of a bit of localised tribal warfare that they probably started , or famine that they caused (as I said because their society decided to place quantity of people over quality of life and didnt even consider things like food supply when they decided to just mindlessly breed like rabbits regardless of the future consequences), who just want to queue jump generations of nation building that we have gone through, and they never had the forethought to bother about, and come here to have the easy life still breeding like rabbits and getting a good quid on the dole for their efforts.

I'd want to do the same in their position to be honest
.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby emmeff » Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:24 pm

"Offence" is not grounds for a slander action, at least not in Australia. It's for damage to reputation.

OK, so the word itself doesn't appear in the act but isn't that the underlying motivation for people to sue? The 'damage to reputation' bit is principally built on speculation.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby emmeff » Fri Jun 07, 2013 4:36 pm

Arriving in Australia without a visa is illegal. Have you read the Convention? It says that countries must not act against illegal arrivals who claim refugee status. The wording assumes that the arrivals are illegal.

No, it says countries where this issue is relevant should take no action against those who arrive without a visa and then claim asylum, which not the same as 'assumes that the arrivals are illegal'. Especially as there is no such offence as 'illegal arrival' in Australia.

Generally speaking ‘illegal immigrants’ are people who enter a country without meeting the legal requirements for entry (without a valid visa, for example). However, under Article 14 of the 1948 Universal declaration of human rights, everyone has the right to seek asylum and the 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits states from imposing penalties on those entering ‘illegally’ who come directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened.

The UNHCR emphasises that a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution should be viewed as a refugee and not be labelled an ‘illegal immigrant’ as the very nature of persecution means that their only means of escape may be via illegal entry and/or the use of false documentation.

[...]

Asylum seekers irrespective of their mode of arrival, like others that arrive in Australia without a valid visa, are classified by Australian law to be ‘unlawful non-citizens’. However, the term ‘unlawful’ does not mean that asylum seekers have committed a criminal offence. There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa.


There is a correct underlying principle you have in mind - people are entitled to claim refugee status and have their cases heard, whether they arrive legally or illegally - but mindless "not illegal" slogan you have repeated is wrong.

How about you retire this slogan of your own, and stop drinking the tabloid koolaid.

As I've said before, the people awaiting resettlement in KL consider there's a queue, and that they're in it. Why do you disagree?

Because you haven't done your research:

There is a view that asylum seekers, particularly those who arrive in Australia by boat, are ‘jumping the queue’ and taking the place of a more deserving refugee awaiting resettlement in a refugee camp. The concept of an orderly queue does not accord with the reality of the asylum process. Paul Power, CEO of the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) notes that:

Implicit in this view is that Australia should not be bothered by people seeking protection under the Refugee Convention and that genuine refugees should go to other countries and wait patiently in the hope that Australia may choose to resettle them.

The reality is that only a small proportion of asylum seekers are registered with the UNHCR and only 11 per cent of asylum claims were registered with the UNHCR in 2011.


It's all laid out for you with references on the parliament house website in Asylum seekers and refugees What are the facts

The real queue-jumpers, if you must have them, are those who have arrive on regular temporary visas (student, 457) and then claim asylum as these are due to expire. They do this in full awareness of the options available to them during the 18 months or two years it will take to resolve their cases. Very few succeed, but the government is obliged on the one hand to resource these claims and on the other generally handle them with care due to the delicate/valuable relationship with the countries of origin.

Stew Ingredient
Online
User avatar
Posts: 5690
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby matt_melb » Sat Jun 08, 2013 12:17 pm

Emmeff, here are some quotes from the relevant laws.

From the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Section 42 Visa essential for travel
(1) Subject to subsections (2), (2A) and (3), a non‑citizen must not travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect.

You can look up subsections (2), (2A) and (3) if you like, but they won't say anything relevant about asylum seekers arriving by boat.

From the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
Article 31
Refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

The Migration Act makes it illegal to travel to Australia without a visa. The Convention endorses the characterisation of such travel as 'illegal', but says penalties must not be imposed if the relevant tests are met.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby dBrother » Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:23 pm

Article 31
Refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.


From my reading of that the only genuine refugee boat people are ones that traveled directly from their place of persecution, so for all intensive purposes Tamils that have travelled direct non stop from SriLanka may count as genuine, but all the others are just illegal entrants to Australia and should be locked up awaiting deportation.

Luckily for us the Aussie government has a deal going with the Sri Lankans about them accepting returning Tamils without a problem.

The Germans had a great final solution to this kind of thing, they'd just find an African country willing to be paid per head for returned African illegals and just send a plane load at a time there, regardless of whether it happened the actual country the individuals were from or not, bloody bleeding heart liberals had to go fuck that one up too but, and put a stop to it.
So now they just push them on towards England instead.
.

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby emmeff » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:11 pm

matt_melb wrote:Emmeff, here are some quotes from the relevant laws.

None of that changes the outcome. Asylum seekers are entitled to travel to Australia by any means and do not commit an offence in so doing. Trying to micro-define wording in legislation that is known to and understood by only a couple of thousand people on the entire planet is not going to stem the human tide, regardless of the joy it gives to the tut-tutting chattering classes and the fearful proletariat.

As for your alleged concerns about people placing themselves at risk by crossing the ocean in boats, I expect you will fully and publicly endorse this campaign by the current Australian government:

Actors pose as asylum seekers' relatives in Australian ads for Afghanistan

The Howard government stopped the boats, for a time, by deploying the navy. That's not gonna work again. It was a hugely expensive gesture by a free-spending government, the military won't have it, and conflicts have escalated since then and will increase in coming years. Many countries between those conflict zones and Australia are not parties to the Refugee Convention. Their priority is to palm off the problem onto others, urging transients on their way.

Meantime, on the eve of World Refugee Day, there's this: New UNHCR report says global forced displacement at 18-year high

What is the correct response for Australia in this context?

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:54 am
Location: Box Hill

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby dBrother » Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:31 pm

emmeff wrote:None of that changes the outcome. Asylum seekers are entitled to travel to Australia by any means and do not commit an offence in so doing


Simplest solution is still just to make it a criminal offence to enter australia illegally, and then deport them for being criminals, i think the incoming government is working on something like that.

And, FWIW, whether or not we throw open the doors to the worlds poor and wretched masses should be a democratically taken decision, not just what some arts student reckons.
.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 11967
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:32 am

Whoops.

Australia's First Black Leader

NORTHERN Territory Chief Minister Adam Giles has denied his family's accusation that he misrepresented his Aboriginal ancestry during his maiden speech to parliament five years ago.

Mr Giles's grandmother, Lois Romer, told The Weekend Australian that her grandson was talking "rubbish" when he described her as an Aboriginal woman who was "born in the Pilliga scrub" of northern NSW.

"Believe me, I was never born in the bush in the Pilliga," Ms Romer said. "I really feel cranky with Adam because I can't believe he would say something like that just to better himself."

Ms Romer said she was born in Inverell Hospital in northern NSW in 1928 and has never regarded herself as Aboriginal, contrary to her grandson's claim.

Mr Giles acknowledged yesterday that his grandmother was born in Inverell, which is more than 300km from the Pilliga, but denied he had suggested she was a traditional Aboriginal woman born in the bush.


An Australian might better themselves by exaggerating their Aboriginal credentials?

Not possible is it?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 718868832#

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 13299
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:28 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Vince » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:35 am

Surely you're missing the point. Its up to him whether he is black not his relatives. If he identifies as an Aborigine and he is accepted as one by another Aborigine then, what more criteria could there be?
"Do you ski?"
"Do I look like I can ski you fuckhead, I can barely walk."

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 7855
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby erkat » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:40 am

Argonheart_Po wrote:Whoops.


An Australian might better themselves by exaggerating their Aboriginal credentials?

Not possible is it?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 718868832#


And yet you neglected to mention this part of the article:

Mr Giles's Aboriginality is not in dispute. His mother, Jan, is white and his father, Bob Romer, was an Aboriginal man who was killed in a building site accident in 1988.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 11967
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Thu Dec 12, 2013 12:02 pm

Here's a photograph of Mr Romer.

Image

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 8512
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:38 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Flobster » Thu Dec 12, 2013 12:37 pm

And that shows ... ? He isn't holding a boomerang, true.
The world ended on 21 December 2012.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 11967
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:28 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Argonheart_Po » Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:05 am

Surely you're missing the point. Its up to him whether he is black not his relatives. If he identifies as an Aborigine and he is accepted as one by another Aborigine then, what more criteria could there be?


The colour of his skin?

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 8743
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby bojangles » Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:47 pm

Argonheart_Po wrote:
Surely you're missing the point. Its up to him whether he is black not his relatives. If he identifies as an Aborigine and he is accepted as one by another Aborigine then, what more criteria could there be?


The colour of his skin?



The old Pantone race chart. Ever popular amongst a certain kind of thinker.
Don't bother with the future. Stay here with us.

And about the gassing thing-is that how your father ended it, head in the oven and all that or was it a hosepipe into the car?

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 8465
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: 'nam

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby harry_flashman » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:22 pm

Adam Giles may not be black but he certainly looks like a poofter. I guess a particular sexual orientation could compensate for his obvious lack of melanin to those people who think these things matter
Hello Flashman

coward, cad, lecher and knave-of-all-trades

Stew Ingredient
Posts: 1387
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Ishmael Pequod » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:36 pm

I hope the media is more mature than the USA was for a black leader. The left is obsessed with who is black and who isn't. Pretty sick stuff.

Stew Ingredient
User avatar
Posts: 13299
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:28 pm

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby Vince » Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:29 pm

Argonheart_Po wrote:
Surely you're missing the point. Its up to him whether he is black not his relatives. If he identifies as an Aborigine and he is accepted as one by another Aborigine then, what more criteria could there be?


The colour of his skin?


Come off it. In this day and age. Next you'll be claiming a man should use the gents and not the ladies.
"Do you ski?"
"Do I look like I can ski you fuckhead, I can barely walk."

stewpid colonial
User avatar
Posts: 11263
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 4:10 am
Location: Darwin, Australia

Re: Australia's First Ever Black Leader

Postby jono_in_adelaide » Sun Dec 15, 2013 11:28 pm

I dont think the media have mentioned that Adam Giles is mixed race since the day he was elected
Si vis pacem, para bellum

Previous

Return to Famous Dishes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest