Immigration

  • Thread starter KSaiyu
  • 1,702 comments
  • 69,754 views
Maybe you should ease up until you've got at least some sort of vague idea of one.
I have got a very good idea of what it should be: don't abuse their rights. Don't treat them like criminals. Don't lock them up indefinitely. Don't leave them at the mercy of locals who will abuse them and kill them. Don't subject them to mental health problems. Don't deny them basic services like health care and education. Don't lock children up. Don't hide behind "national security" to avoid scrutiny. And don't pretend that it's in the national interest to do so.

I may not have a fully-realised vision of what this policy could be - but that doesn't make the existing policy good by default.
 
Unfortunately this is "noise"...

"I want a society that is equal, that is just, that is fair on everyone, where everyone can prosper and go to the best schools and universities and get the jobs they want"

"How you going to do that then?"

"I'm working on it"
 
You can disagree with it, but you should be prepared to offer an alternative. I disagree with a lot of things (like Israeli treatment of Palestinians) and come up with alternatives that can be put up for debate (like creating a "buffer zone" free from settlements/Palestinian militants).

So yes, continue calling them out but sooner or later people will ask "Yeah, so what do you think we should do instead?"
 
You can disagree with it, but you should be prepared to offer an alternative.

Not really, that's like the 80s culture of "don't point out problems if you don't have the solution". Very flawed. It's much better to have people say "I think this is wrong, I think it's a problem" to gauge the opinions of people in a culture, organisation or debate.

I have got a very good idea of what it should be: don't abuse their rights. Don't treat them like criminals. Don't lock them up indefinitely. Don't leave them at the mercy of locals who will abuse them and kill them. Don't subject them to mental health problems. Don't deny them basic services like health care and education. Don't lock children up. Don't hide behind "national security" to avoid scrutiny. And don't pretend that it's in the national interest to do so.

Seems like a very good start to me, reading between the lines I'd call the alternative a form of de-humanisation simply because one distrusts the motives of some emigrants.
 
Seems like a very good start to me, reading between the lines I'd call the alternative a form of de-humanisation simply because one distrusts the motives of some emigrants.
I have said it before, and doubtless I will say it again: these people are fleeing from death and devastation - from war, terrorism, genocide, persecution and rape. Our policy is to make the journey here worse than that; by default, our policy is "if their only two choices are staying where they are or trying to come here, we'd rather that they stay". In what world is a policy of making things so bad that war, terrorism, genocide, persecution and rape the lesser of two evils a good thing?

Sure, advocates of the policy argue that it saves lives, but like I said, there's eight hundred refugees adrift in the Indian Ocean who have not been saved - they are at the mercy of under-equipped governments that cannot (and more to the point, will not) accept them.
 
Not really, that's like the 80s culture of "don't point out problems if you don't have the solution". Very flawed. It's much better to have people say "I think this is wrong, I think it's a problem" to gauge the opinions of people in a culture, organisation or debate.
Yes really. Notice I didn't say you have to have an alternative. But if you want to carry on complaining "such and such is against human rights" then eventually someone is going to ask you what the alternative is, leading to...

I have said it before, and doubtless I will say it again: these people are fleeing from death and devastation - from war, terrorism, genocide, persecution and rape. Our policy is to make the journey here worse than that; by default, our policy is "if their only two choices are staying where they are or trying to come here, we'd rather that they stay". In what world is a policy of making things so bad that war, terrorism, genocide, persecution and rape the lesser of two evils a good thing?
OK, so what do you propose? How many do you want to take in? What happens to the ones who don't make the cut? What happens to the others who will be inspired to make the journey because you've let x amount in?
 
A large bulk of the issue is funding, which is most likely to come from taxpayers. If there were programs put in place to naturalise and educate any immigrants so that they could become a part of the society, then there would be a feeling of resentment growing from within the local population due to the fact that this is their money, as can be seen in parts of Europe and North America.
 
The problem is where I live we have one of the largest refugee communities, and we saw what happened with educating and trying to naturalise the community. It made sense in principle, but it required a willingness on the part of the refugees to want to assimilate, and the assumption that this would not be an issue is where the problems occured (in this specific case).
 
The problem is where I live we have one of the largest refugee communities, and we saw what happened with educating and trying to naturalise the community. It made sense in principle, but it required a willingness on the part of the refugees to want to assimilate, and the assumption that this would not be an issue is where the problems occured (in this specific case).

I agree, a number of refugees may not want to integrate into the society that they have migrated to, and in some extreme cases try to force their own cultures on the local people. But that all comes down to the individual and how willing they are to accept the society they've come to.

If you don't mind me asking, where are the refugees coming from in your area?
 
Unless the First Nation People are the majority then you could argue that the United States are built entirely on immigration, your country is very very young.
yes the country is very young,but it's also unique as well.I don't know of any nation that wasn't built upon immigration of some kind,but what I'm saying is that each nation needs to protect it's sovereignty and enforce the country's laws.One might argue that the lack of protecting it might involve turning people away who may seek to better themselves and or their families but currently are low skilled.The issue becomes like a job interview and where the potential employer asks "what skills do you have that would most benefit me?" and those who have the most desirable skills should and are usually allowed in through whatever immigration process the country utilizes.
 
it required a willingness on the part of the refugees to want to assimilate
Have you ever asked yourself how they would interpret "assimilation"? It's generally taken to mean forcibly giving up their culture and their values - at a time when it's really all they have left - for another set that is being positioned as "better" with no evidence beyond the expectation of the community.

And then you wonder why they resist.
 
Not really, that's like the 80s culture of "don't point out problems if you don't have the solution". Very flawed. It's much better to have people say "I think this is wrong, I think it's a problem" to gauge the opinions of people in a culture, organisation or debate.

I say stuff the opinions of the "people in a culture" if human rights abuses are taking place. The big problem here though is that inaction is not an option. This is not "should we or shouldn't we stone homosexuals to death", or something else that could simply be stopped. There MUST be a response, the government CANNOT be inactive on it, and condemners shouldn't just sit back in their armchair soapboxes and shout......

I have got a very good idea of what it should be: don't abuse their rights. Don't treat them like criminals. Don't lock them up indefinitely. Don't leave them at the mercy of locals who will abuse them and kill them. Don't subject them to mental health problems. Don't deny them basic services like health care and education. Don't lock children up. Don't hide behind "national security" to avoid scrutiny. And don't pretend that it's in the national interest to do so.

I may not have a fully-realised vision of what this policy could be - but that doesn't make the existing policy good by default.

So, you've got nothing. Notice that's not a question, but rather a conclusion. A not "fully realised vision" I'd take, but that's a lie. You've given nothing.

If it's not already overtly, blatantly, conspicuously, distinctly, "no faeces Sherlock"-y, "well duh"-y obvious by now - you need a DO.
 
So, you've got nothing. Notice that's not a question, but rather a conclusion.
In your opinion. But tell me, does that justify the current policy that amounts to blatantly abusing human rights and then hiding behind national security to justify it?
 
I agree, a number of refugees may not want to integrate into the society that they have migrated to, and in some extreme cases try to force their own cultures on the local people. But that all comes down to the individual and how willing they are to accept the society they've come to.

If you don't mind me asking, where are the refugees coming from in your area?
Somalia. What happens with the EU as it is at the moment is that a lot of Somalis go to other EU countries, get their passport there, then travel to the UK under unrestricted travel rules.

Have you ever asked yourself how they would interpret "assimilation"? It's generally taken to mean forcibly giving up their culture and their values - at a time when it's really all they have left - for another set that is being positioned as "better" with no evidence beyond the expectation of the community.

And then you wonder why they resist.
Forcibly give up their culture? Have you been to West London recently, it is the indigenous who have been forced to give up their culture :lol:

I'll take some pictures of "Little Mogadishu" sometime soon. And don't get antsy this isn't a slur. If you google it you will see we have a "Little India" and a "Little Poland" in this area - the same as you probably have a "Chinatown" in your major cities.
 
The new immigration policy enforced by Brussel is being shot down by several members. It started with Hungary, Slovakia and Estonia refusing to take in extra fugitives, and now France is being stubborn.

Yeey for one Europe once more!
 
Hungary and Slovakia hate immigrants almost as much as they hate each other.
 
Nada from prisonermonkeys, so I'l tag those who liked this post quoted from the Human Rights thread.....

I'm posting in this thread because I am bothered by some recent developments in my country.

Now, I know that I like to harp on about the quality of my government and the stupid things they do and say on a seemingly daily basis. But I am going to put that aside for a moment because of an issue that completely disgusts me: our treatment of asylum seekers.

Australia has twin policies of mandatory detention and offshore processing for anyone who attempts to arrive illegally. Upon interception in Australian waters, any and every asylum seeker is taken to a "detention facility" on Manus Island, which is a part of Papua New Guinea. They remain in this compound until their applications for asylum can be processed. If they succeed, they are resettled on Manus Island. If they are rejected, they will be deported. The idea is to interrupt people-smuggling operations by denying anyone the ability to settle in Australia; if they are legitimate refugees, they will (supposedly) accept being resettled anywhere.

In the past few days, the Australian Human Rights Commission has handed down a review of the conditions under which people are detained, with a particular focus on children in detention. You read that right - children in detention. We are the only country in the world which detains children.

The ARHC review team was made up of a group of medical and clinical professionals, who investigated the detention conditions. They have found evidence of physical and sexual assaults in detention facilities, of substandard medical care, and of increasing mental health problems. There have been incidents of self-harm, and most shockingly of all, children under the age of ten who are on suicide watch. It recommends a Royal Commission - an open, impartial forum to investigate matters of public interest - into the status of children in detention.

My government's response has been to ignore this report. As it is more critical of them and less critical of the previous government (their opponents) than they would like, they have immediately branded it as a partisan attack on their "good government". Conservative supporters claim that our border security cannot be compromised, and that the AHRC did not address the increased numbers of detainees under the previous government. They further claim that asylum seekers have been telling "sob stories" to win over bleeding-heart liberals, and that if children are suffering, then they are doing so because their parents are pressuring them into it to emotionally blackmail the Australian population. The government has already ruled out a Royal Commission (despite having conducted two in the recent past aimed at destroying the reputation of their rivals) as it is a matter of national security - they have steadfastly refused to discuss any details of their operations, justifying it as vital to keeping details secret to prevent showing their hand to people smugglers.

But at the end of the day, the status quo is this: whatever the circumstances that led to them being there, there are people suffering as a result of a policy that amounts to institutionalised abuse. Our borders are secure, but the price that has been paid is the dignity of hundreds of people in detention. As a direct result of our policies, innocent children are suffering.

I am thoroughly ashamed to call myself Australian at the moment. This is the single most disgusting policy that we have ever had, and once upon a time, we had the White Australia Policy. It is a subversion and a corruption of our values, and a disturbing turn of events perpetrated by a self-declared "good government" for the purpose of staying in government.

Furthermore, I believe that the people responsible for this policy are criminals. Tony Abbott, our Prime Minister; Scott Morisson, former Immigration Minster; and Peter Dutton, the current Immigration Minister (although he's a weak man and probably just parrotting the party line). They need to be held responsible for their actions. They must be held responsible for their actions. The shame of their policies are ours to bear, but their actions amount to abuse. Our archives must be opened and details of this policy released, unredacted, to the public. Children in detention must be freed with immediate effect. And Abbott, Dutton and Morisson should be hauled before the International Criminal Court and made to answer for their crimes.

@Ealirendur, @ClydeYellow, @Imari, @DK

Any alternate policy proposals? For easy catch-up, the latest prisonermonkeys diatribe (that I know of) surfaced at post #26 in this thread.

Bare in mind that a litany of "don't"s is simply not going to cut it. This is not some abstract concept - it's real people in boats, and real people in government - and happening right now. If the solution is a figurative factor of 100, 0 + 0 is not going to get us anywhere at all.
 
Any alternate policy proposals? For easy catch-up, the latest prisonermonkeys diatribe (that I know of) surfaced at post #26 in this thread.

I don't see why we can't treat them like real people.

It's non-trivial to get to Australia by boat already, which probably puts an upper limit on the amount of people that will turn up. We've seen that the smugglers are willing to sink their own boats to make sure that the people have to be picked up by Australia, at the risk of drowning to all, so I think we just have to accept that these people need to be brought into the country.

This is a relatively new country for most of the residents, built on immigration from a number of countries, and maybe we should just embrace that. We're hardly short on land, the place is massive. Let them come.

There are things to be figured out as to how to provide some support to these people without throwing taxpayer money at them. It's going to cost some, but that's the price of being a decent human being. But when these people are working and contributing to society it should even out, a bit like a pension scheme in reverse. The old immigrants pay to get the new immigrants set up, who then become old immigrants who pay to get the next round of immigrants going.

I make the assumption that most of the immigrants would be happy to have an ordinary Australian life, were they offered the opportunity. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they're all criminals, terrorists and dole bludgers. In which case I'd probably rather be wrong, I'm not going to start assuming that people I meet are criminals just because they happened to come from a tough situation.

Maybe this would all spiral into a wave of people flooding into Australia. Maybe I think that would be fine, for a country the size of Australia with only 20 million people in it. Just because we happen to be born with a lot of cake doesn't mean we can't share it with those who don't have any.
 
Bare in mind that a litany of "don't"s is simply not going to cut it. This is not some abstract concept - it's real people in boats, and real people in government - and happening right now. If the solution is a figurative factor of 100, 0 + 0 is not going to get us anywhere at all.

I think abandoning the PNG solution and reverting to the old policy that was in place during Rudd's government would be, if not a solution, at least a step in the right direction. If the solution is a figurative factor of 100, this would be a 20, perhaps.

At least Australia has some sort of integration policy. Perhaps a bit too reliant on NGOs, but hey, it's Australia after all - perhaps one of the most liberalist countries in the world. As it is, the main problem with Australian policies concerning asylum-seekers seem to be Manus.

(I may come back and explain in detail what I think would be a good policy geared towards the rescue&settlement of so-called boat people, but bear with me, I am as tired and overworked as one can be right now)
 
It's non-trivial to get to Australia by boat already, which probably puts an upper limit on the amount of people that will turn up.

Non-trivial? Yes. Does/would that create a natural cap? Yes. An acceptable cap? Hell no, most likely. That's a policy that would deal death to ever increasing numbers of people.

Personally, I'd like to look at how effectively we could actively find people genuinely in need of refuge, and double, triple, or quadruple our intake. In concert with that, if harsh treatment of boat arrivals continued it would at least count towards tipping the scales in favour of would be refugees choosing against the potentially deadly option and striving for the safe option. If the balance was right, and we're taking in enough people the "right" way, I'd hope that it would end up being viewed as a completely stupid idea to blow every family member's life savings, risk dying at sea, and being locked up indefinitely. It's all about getting the proportions of the good vs the bad right. At the moment we seem to have bugger all of the good going on, and perception follows. Perception being a really important thing in stopping people jumping on dodgy boats.


I think abandoning the PNG solution and reverting to the old policy that was in place during Rudd's government would be, if not a solution, at least a step in the right direction. If the solution is a figurative factor of 100, this would be a 20, perhaps.

I disagree. In line with what I wrote above, it only makes the "bad" more of an option.
 
There are things to be figured out as to how to provide some support to these people without throwing taxpayer money at them. It's going to cost some, but that's the price of being a decent human being. But when these people are working and contributing to society it should even out, a bit like a pension scheme in reverse. The old immigrants pay to get the new immigrants set up, who then become old immigrants who pay to get the next round of immigrants going.

I make the assumption that most of the immigrants would be happy to have an ordinary Australian life, were they offered the opportunity. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they're all criminals, terrorists and dole bludgers. In which case I'd probably rather be wrong, I'm not going to start assuming that people I meet are criminals just because they happened to come from a tough situation.
This is the thing.

I've given you evidence of the largest refugee community's contribution to the UK.
I've given you evidence of the disproportionate rape statistics in Sweden.

No-one is telling you to assume that people are criminals, but you have to evaluate the evidence available to you before changing policy based on assumptions. Especially when that change in policy could act as an attraction and send hundreds or thousands onto boats in the belief that the gates are open.
 
I personally don't like how Australia handles it. Most of these people are innocent and are trying to escape terrible fates brought on by their own country. Yet, we treat criminals with more royalties than them. (I'm looking at a certain 2 especially).
 
That's a blinkered statistic though, Sweden records "rape" very differently. They also have the highest rate of white-on-white rape because of that.
Yikes you can see why child rapists love liberals up north....

From the article I posted:

Since 2000, there has only been one research report on immigrant crime. It was done in 2006 by Ann-Christine Hjelm from Karlstads University.


It emerged that in 2002, 85% of those sentenced to at least two years in prison for rape in Svea Hovrätt, a court of appeals, were foreign born or second-generation immigrants.


A 1996 report by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention reached the conclusion that immigrants from North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) were 23 times as likely to commit rape as Swedish men. The figures for men from Iraq, Bulgaria and Romania were, respectively, 20, 18 and 18. Men from the rest of Africa were 16 times more prone to commit rape; and men from Iran, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, 10 times as prone as Swedish men.


You could be right. I mean differences in recording rape could factor into this....somehow.
 
For me, the issue is not one of where you are born, it's about who picks up the tab for what you want to do with your life. Immigration is fine if you pay your way, just as you should pay your way in the country you are born.

In the case of actual refugees there is no easy answer, but I'd rather my tax money go to house and feed someone in genuine need, i.e. someone that has endured hell to escape from worse treatment than most people able to post on this forum will ever know... Than to someone who thinks they are owed benefits because they don't have SkyTV and super fast broadband....

... That's not to say we should offer integration into our own society, that's not always the correct course of action.
 
Back