RUN for the hills!! There's NOTHING to fear!!

australia wrote:

stop squabbling lefties!!

Not a "leftie" australia. Just a sweet, reasonable moderate guy.

0 Replies

australia wrote:

I would not consider myself racist. Have a lot of ethnic friends. I just would like the immigration level of muslims to slow down. If this makes me a right winger, so be it!

And just how many Muslims have emigrated to Australia lately? Do you know any?

As always the majority of migrants to this country come from the either Europe. the Americas, the UK, Sth Africa, China (ie Hong Kong) and Oceania (the biggest lot since 2000 being New Zealanders). They would all tend to be Christians, after that would be migrants from either India or Sri Lanka (Hindi) - apart from humanitarian visas there is little being done to encourage 'Muslims' (of any persuasion) to live in Australia.

The usual 'pub' talk. "All those Arabs get a pension as soon as they step off the plane" - "They can't do anything for the boongs coz they just drink" - "Those slope-heads steal our pets and eat them". Why don't we have a cringe emoticon?

0 Replies

Oh yeah, here are some FACTS to help you...

http://www.immi.gov.au/statistics/images/federation.jpg

Source

Quote:

This publication is an overview of the migration and population history of Australia in the 20th century, bringing together data from a variety of sources. The main sources are the statistical collections of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. In particular, extensive use has been made of the national Censuses. The contents of the publication allow anyone interested in Australian immigration or population history to study the process of change that occurred in the population in the 20th century.

0 Replies

You only have to go to any shopping centre to see the massive increase of muslims compared to 5 years ago.

0 Replies

Have you informed the ABS of this brilliant new form of data collection?

0 Replies

You guys are only encouraging him!

I mean, encourage if you will...

0 Replies

The US was and continues to be benefitted by influxes of immigrants, however problematic at the time. My greatgrandfather came here on a raftlike boat. To a large extent, the variety is enriching.

I understand the drive to have a place stay the same, especially when the culture has developed as a way of life.
I cringe myself when tourist hordes descend and by that action change a place, oh, say, Tuscany, and feel pretty protective of singular culture. (Although - Tuscany is a rich jewel from overlaid invasion.)

But then most of us (ancestors) landed on such cultures ourselves, and threw them awry.

invasion overlays ... overlain invasion. Vote, there may be a poll...

0 Replies

I agree with you about the tourism hordes. And I think that migrants have added a lot to this country. But my point is, which everyone is overlooking, as a responsible government is it wise to have a particular section of migrants which could be potentially a security problem? But from what you write, I think most of you would let in anyone to the country without a care in the world.

0 Replies

Generally not criminals, australia, or people with links to terror groups. Just for starters.

You assume too much because people disagree with your extreme position.

0 Replies

Okay then, here is a hypothetical question for you. If there were 100 refugees on a boat wanting asylum in australia. 99 of them are law abiding citizens wanting a new home. 1 has terrorist links and is a potential threat. You have two options. 1) take them all in and take the risk. 2) send them all back and be safe but unfair to 99 of them. I am interested in peoples opinion of this question.

0 Replies

Something tells me that cane toads are still a bigger problem in Oz than Muslims.

0 Replies

And rabbits.

0 Replies

Thems too.

0 Replies

You didn't answer the question, as usual. You are more set in your opinion than I am. I am flexible in my view and willing to listen. But, to you, anyone who is slightly different to what you think is right wing.

0 Replies

australia wrote:

Okay then, here is a hypothetical question for you. If there were 100 refugees on a boat wanting asylum in australia. 99 of them are law abiding citizens wanting a new home. 1 has terrorist links and is a potential threat. You have two options. 1) take them all in and take the risk. 2) send them all back and be safe but unfair to 99 of them. I am interested in peoples opinion of this question.

Those are not the only two options.

Why not let the 99 in and kick the potential threat out?

Why do they have to all be treated the same?

Your question is logically flawed.

0 Replies

Yeppers - I agree with Adrian - it was a question without relevance to the discussion, in my view - therefore I ignored it.

0 Replies

I guess the way the question was ment was:

100 refugees arrive in a boat. The refugees are from a population among which 1 % is estimated to have terrorist links without this being known by authorities. None of the refugees are known to have terrorist links. Should the batch be taken in or turned away?

0 Replies

Same logical flaw applies.

The Excluded Middle.

0 Replies

Correct. you don't know which is the terrorist. You either take them all in or turn them all away. There is no right or wrong answer, I am just interested to hear peoples logic.

0 Replies

I notice that no one highlights or objects to the two recent court rulings on alleged terrorists being allowed to stay in Australia. The immigration department tries to throw them out for having terrorist links, they go to the high court to appeal, and the high court overrules the immigration department and lets them in. Surely this is a case of political correctness rising above common sense. But judging from opinion here, I think I am in the minority.

0 Replies

RUN for the hills!! There's NOTHING to fear!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know