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

You are not in the minority. You are merely playing deceptive categorical games to reveal contradictions in the views or responses of others, while concealing those in your own,

Any systematic form of immigration involves some element of risk of the admission of someone with a communicable disease, a criminal past or links to terrorism. One attempts to minimize this risk through health and background checks. In many cases an immigrant, who reveals deception or the lack of qualification after his/her arrival, can be expelled or deported before residency becomes final.

It is absurd to ask any of us here to comment on or react to a specific court case in Australia, of which we have no specific knowledge. If the attempt by one part of the Australian government was to expel the person in question and the attempt was overturned by the courts, we must assume the Australian judges were acting in accord with Australian law, enacted by the elected representatives of the Australian people. If the system failed, there are remedies for this readily available to the people of Australia.

Many nations (mostly in northern Europe) have very restrictive immigration policies, but pride themselves in meeting supposed UN standards for development aid to poorer countries, Most go on to criticize countries, notably like the United States that have historically very open to immigrants from just about everywhere, but which fail to meet this supposed % of GDP standard for development assistance to other countries. This of course is hypocritical in the extreme. Norway, awash in North Sea oil money, in effect pays the poor to stay away, while we (relatively speaking) welcome them to our midst to live among us, work hard and make their own way. Which policy is truly more generous in real, human terms? .

Sigh.

Bandying about of so-called "political correctness" attacks has reached such endemic proportions here that the people doing it are making laughing stocks of themselves.

Presumably this is supposed to cease all criticism of the person making the claim - after all, nobody wishes to be seen in last season's political ideas, do they?

This is a typical example.

Please defend your assertion that the High Court was being "politically correct".

It would - without some damn convincing evidence from you - make far more sense to believe they were being legally correct.

Or - do you wish the rule of law in Australia to cease in regard to Muslim would-be immigrants?

It was in the news today. I don't know how to post it on to the forum. Of course I don't believe that all muslims should be banned. It is stupid to suggest I do. But this guy was charged in India for terrorsit links. The indian Government refuse to have him in the country. Our immigration officers try to throw him out. He goes to the high court and wins the appeal. Now okay, you and I don't know if he is a terrorist. But surely, if our immigration authorities think he is a threat to us, the public and court system should support that. I would not take the risk if it was me. That is my issue, that a government has first priority to protect its people that it governs. Sure, it is great to be compassionate for people less fortunate than us, but this should consideration should never over rule the first. If there was ever a terror situation in Australia( which I doubt), you people will be the first to complain that the government did nothing to stop it.

You know nothing about what "we people" would do - and you are foolish to make such announcements.

If you have read the paper online, then you may simply copy the url and paste it here.

Or tell me where you read it, and I will see if I can find it online.

It is the duty of the courts to rule in accordance with Australian law - not in agreement with the government.

Have you not heard of "separation of powers"? Do you not consider it important?

BTW - I think that there WILL likely be terror situations in Oz - to me the question is how much we surrender civil liberties in an attempt to stop one.

Dispensing with the rule of law and the separation of powers is not a surrender I am willing to make.

Well done! That is what I have been trying to discuss for days. The contrast between civil liberties and safety and protection. Probably, you articulated it better than I did. I agree what you say. There are lots of areas where the government puts scare tactics to people(in particular the growing elderly population which are more prone to being frightened) in order that they can dump legislation giving them greater control. They try to justify this by saying they are preventing terrosit activities. For example, overseas monetary transactions have been scrutinised more and more each year through austrac.

Jeez! Not in my shopping centre. What am I missing out on?!

But what about the Muslim terrorists coming here in those leaky boats and taking over your shopping centres? We should have laws stopping that now should we?? First it's the shopping centres, then it will be the High Court ruling that we have to attend prayer sessions at the local mosque every day! Our children will become second-class citizens as a flood of these people will hijack our legal system to take over the nation!!

And don't try and bullsh!t your way out of this argument! YOU are the one that started it off!

Well, in my shopping centre ("cosmoplitan Sydney Road", we like to call it! : :wink: ) there is plenty of evidence of the "Muslim invasion" .... say nothing of Africans, Greeks, Italians, Egyptians, Turks, Macedonians, Ukrainians, etc, etc, etc .... However, I can report that shopping for my fruit & vegies is quite a peaceful & unthreatening experience. :wink:

Stick to the topic stillwater. the issue is about the national security versus civil liberties. I never mentioned leaky boats so try not to over dramatise the issue. I hope you gain better perspective when you are overseas.

Not where I shop, it isn't! You take your life in your hands - and I don't think Muslims are the cause.....

My goodness, what IS the cause, margo?

people, mostly - some of whom are not all that well mannered!

Gotta watch out for them people, margo! Ya never know what they'll do next! They're a bloody menace, if you ask me!