[KlassWar]

:roll:

I don't see how someone is meant to have mutral respect with an invader standing on their soil.

It's not always that simple.

It gets murkier when you're not talking about the original colonial settlers themselves, but their descendants. Even if they're originally a settler population, after a few genererations kicking the invaders out stops being a more or less straightforward process and becomes a horrible mess of tribal violence and ethnic cleansing. Because second and later generation settlers usually have nowhere else to go back to and see themselves as local, so they'll be far more averse to leaving than first-generation settlers.

When Catalonia becomes independent, we can't just go ahead and kick all the Spaniards out: It would require a ludicrous amount of violence to pull it off, and Catalonia's economy would have to make do with less than 60% of its original population, which just plain wouldn't work. (Without mentioning that ethnically cleansing the Spaniards would give an already hostile Spain an excellent fresh excuse to wreak havoc).

The only realistic way to deal with large settler-descended population groups after national liberations is either tolerance, cultural assimilation or a mixture of both.


Even if y'all manage to liberate Northern Ireland, you're probably stuck with most of the Huns for the long haul as well. Can't kick them out without extreme violence, and extreme violence against the Huns would bring trouble with the Brits back.

[Swagman]

In this case, I don't think there's anything wrong with invoking Godwin's law to highlight the stupidity of your argument.

What argument? I asked a simple question. What was the name of the Act?

[GandalfTheGrey]

What argument? I asked a simple question. What was the name of the Act?

The argument that presenting evidence that this was clearly a program of racial annihilation can simply be trumped by the referring to the official title given to this program.

I agree with you though that this can't really be considered an argument - not one that can be taken seriously anyway. Glad you recognised that at least.

[anarchist23]

Swagman.I have also asked a simple question which you have not answered.I will ask you again.Are YOU a racist?

[Swagman]

Swagman.I have also asked a simple question which you have not answered.I will ask you again.Are YOU a racist?

Do you mean do I label people 'scum' because they are successful and advocate that they be 'executed' ?

No.

[anarchist23]

Swagman.You still haven't answered the question.Are you a racist?

[Swagman]

Swagman.You still haven't answered the question.Are you a racist?

Asked and answered in my previous post.

[anarchist23]

Swagman.You will be interested in subforum "Health and Education"......and the OT...."Private schools ability to expel/ban gays to be ended in NSW'"..............can not wait for your posts.

[at946]

I think Australian Asylum policy is terrible . I say to all who are for it ,"Would you ,If you could better life for you and your family take the risk ". There is no queue, Australia has to take 17,00 refugees a year which is bugger all compared to some countries . It's just that thanks to Howard's "Children Overboard " successive redneck commentators have swayed the non thinking public to vilify them so successive governments have jumped on the Bandwagon even tho' the majority profess to be charitable Christians.

[anarchist23]

I think Australian Asylum policy is terrible . I say to all who are for it ,"Would you ,If you could better life for you and your family take the risk ". There is no queue, Australia has to take 17,00 refugees a year which is bugger all compared to some countries . It's just that thanks to Howard's "Children Overboard " successive redneck commentators have swayed the non thinking public to vilify them so successive governments have jumped on the Bandwagon even tho' the majority profess to be charitable Christians.

^
Definitely

When I think of a refugee my thoughts turn to Anne Frank and her unfortunate fate-Possibly Australians should do likewise and modify their racist behaviour.

Again,where is Australia's "Help the Underdog" reputation???

[Rejn]

I think Australian Asylum policy is terrible . I say to all who are for it ,"Would you ,If you could better life for you and your family take the risk ". There is no queue, Australia has to take 17,00 refugees a year which is bugger all compared to some countries . It's just that thanks to Howard's "Children Overboard " successive redneck commentators have swayed the non thinking public to vilify them so successive governments have jumped on the Bandwagon even tho' the majority profess to be charitable Christians.

Perhaps Australia is not for you. Personally, I would rather not have any refugees here.

Also, there must be a queue, otherwise how are the refugees processed? Do you think they roll a die or use a random number generator to determine which application will be processed next?

[Swagman]

When I think of a refugee my thoughts turn to Anne Frank and her unfortunate fate-Possibly Australians should do likewise and modify their racist behaviour.

That is exactly what the refugee convention is for. If Indonesia was being ruled by Nazis or Stalinists and boats were fleeing the regime of Indonesia for Australia then the boats would have a legitimate claim. Travelling through 10 different countries to Indonesia then taking an unauthorised boat to enter Australia does not.

[at946]

What happens when “boat people” arrive?

Every person who arrives in Australia without a valid visa or travel document is deemed to have arrived illegally and is held in immigration detention. Detention is mandatory, whether a person arrives by boat or aeroplane. If they make a claim to stay in Australia on the grounds that they are refugees, they are held in detention until their claim for refugee status is assessed. While Asylum Seekers in detention receive priority in the decision making process, they can still be held for a number of years while applications and appeals are considered. The courts cannot review detention, for all practical purposes (Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission, Face the Facts, 2000).

Myth 1 - Asylum Seekers are illegal immigrants.
Fact: Asylum Seekers are not illegal immigrants.

Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege that they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal. They are asylum seekers - a legal status under International Law. Many asylum seekers are forced to leave their countries in haste and are unable to access appropriate documentation. In many cases, oppressive authorities actively prevent normal migration process from occuring.

‘Illegals’ are people who overstay their visas. The vast majority of these in Australia are from western countries, including 5,000 British tourists.
MYTH 2– Asylum Seekers are queue jumpers
Fact: No they are not.

The notion that people who seek asylum in Australia have always been selected from a queue from those whose claims have been verified by the UNHCR is patently false, as no such queue exists. In fact, in Iraq and Afghanistan there are no queues to jump. Australia has no consular presence in these countries, by far our largest source of asylum seekers. Therefore there is no standard refugee process where people wait in line to have their applications considered.

Few countries between the Middle East and Australia are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and as such, asylum seekers are forced to travel to another country to find protection. People who are afraid of their lives have been fleeing from the world’s most brutal regimes including the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq.

In any case, for several decades now Australia’s immigration program has had onshore and offshore components, which allowed people to seek asylum as refugees from outside as well as from within Australia. The offshore humanitarian component has been determined by various priorities and criteria established by the Australian government.

In other words Australia has “picked/chosen” who it wanted and it certainly has not been on the basis of their place in a “queue”. It is therefore duplicitous to talk of asylum seekers depriving more deserving refugees languishing in refugee camps around the world.

The only queue jumping that occurs in relation to Australia’s immigration program is a direct consequence of the uneven distribution of its overseas immigration staff. Consequently, from a global perspective, immigrants are not processed in the order that they apply to migrate to Australia. Some are able to “jump the queue” if they apply from countries which have a disproportionate share of these staff.

[Rejn]

What happens when “boat people” arrive?

Every person who arrives in Australia without a valid visa or travel document is deemed to have arrived illegally and is held in immigration detention. Detention is mandatory, whether a person arrives by boat or aeroplane. If they make a claim to stay in Australia on the grounds that they are refugees, they are held in detention until their claim for refugee status is assessed. While Asylum Seekers in detention receive priority in the decision making process, they can still be held for a number of years while applications and appeals are considered. The courts cannot review detention, for all practical purposes (Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission, Face the Facts, 2000).

Queue jumpers.

Myth 1 - Asylum Seekers are illegal immigrants.
Fact: Asylum Seekers are not illegal immigrants.

Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege that they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal. They are asylum seekers - a legal status under International Law. Many asylum seekers are forced to leave their countries in haste and are unable to access appropriate documentation. In many cases, oppressive authorities actively prevent normal migration process from occuring.

Asylum seekers can still be deemed illegal immigrants if their application is rejected.

‘Illegals’ are people who overstay their visas. The vast majority of these in Australia are from western countries, including 5,000 British tourists.

Who should be deported immediately.

The notion that people who seek asylum in Australia have always been selected from a queue from those whose claims have been verified by the UNHCR is patently false, as no such queue exists. In fact, in Iraq and Afghanistan there are no queues to jump. Australia has no consular presence in these countries, by far our largest source of asylum seekers. Therefore there is no standard refugee process where people wait in line to have their applications considered.

Afghans can make their applications with the visa office in Pakistan.

Few countries between the Middle East and Australia are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and as such, asylum seekers are forced to travel to another country to find protection. People who are afraid of their lives have been fleeing from the world’s most brutal regimes including the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq.

Pashtuns are culturally similar to the Persians, and Iran is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. It can be argued that travelling Eastward across a continent to reach Australia is not for protection, but for economic migration, where there is a safe country bordering the country of origin. With this argument, the asylum seeker can be deemed to not have acted in good faith, and Australia may withdraw any protection to him/her.

In any case, for several decades now Australia’s immigration program has had onshore and offshore components, which allowed people to seek asylum as refugees from outside as well as from within Australia. The offshore humanitarian component has been determined by various priorities and criteria established by the Australian government.

In other words Australia has “picked/chosen” who it wanted and it certainly has not been on the basis of their place in a “queue”. It is therefore duplicitous to talk of asylum seekers depriving more deserving refugees languishing in refugee camps around the world.

In order to choose who we want, we would need to sift through the applications. Someone arriving here by boat would get priority like you said, which puts them ahead of anyone being processed normally.

The only queue jumping that occurs in relation to Australia’s immigration program is a direct consequence of the uneven distribution of its overseas immigration staff. Consequently, from a global perspective, immigrants are not processed in the order that they apply to migrate to Australia. Some are able to “jump the queue” if they apply from countries which have a disproportionate share of these staff.

So you're saying that there is a queue per country - just processed at different speeds.

[redcarpet]

There is no queue at all. Not like the applications are considered in chronological order. They are considered based on the criteria
set by the fed. govt.

[Rejn]

There is no queue at all. Not like the applications are considered in chronological order. They are considered based on the criteria
set by the fed. govt.

What's this criteria then?

[redcarpet]

Governments create them.

Like excluding certain nationalities, applications prohibited from parents, etc.

Do you mean you are asking what Australia's is under Mr. Abbot? I don't know, on the immigration dept. website I imagine

[Rejn]

Governments create them.

Like excluding certain nationalities, applications prohibited from parents, etc.

Do you mean you are asking what Australia's is under Mr. Abbot? I don't know, on the immigration dept. website I imagine

Screening is the first phase of processing applications. If they've been excluded, they've been processed.

[redcarpet]

Economic migrants may also be excluded it. It is not a right to move to a new country for better wages or lifestyle, etc. Asylum is a right, though.