Post: #26

I think it's the mark of a proud country that it graciously offers safe haven to those that desperately need it, due to horrific conditions in their homeland.

And if they literally arrive by boat (sailboats? Rowboats? I'm assuming these aren't luxury cruiseliners), then that's fairly impressive IMO. It speaks to their resilience and resourcefulness.

Post: #27

(09-19-2013 01:40 AM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  I think it's the mark of a proud country that it graciously offers safe haven to those that desperately need it, due to horrific conditions in their homeland.

And if they literally arrive by boat (sailboats? Rowboats? I'm assuming these aren't luxury cruiseliners), then that's fairly impressive IMO. It speaks to their resilience and resourcefulness.

It is the mark of a proud country. But since the global financial crash of 2007, many in the western world are feeling the financial crunch. Longer days in the office, less benefits, inflation/higher prices with the returns in their retirement account not catching up.

All in all, people in the western world, even some women, are waking up to the reality that in the end the economy is the most important thing. And they don't have enough to support the world AND live the life standard they are used to.

Sort of like Obama wanting to raise the prices of energy so that Americans cannot afford to live as comfortably in their own home to help the environment. It is up to the American people to decide if they should live worse to help the rest of the world or not, and most Americans will not be down for this if they become informed what they are voting for.

Post: #28

Why should any first world country encourage or even tolerate an influx of third world peoples into its borders? How is that in any way desirable for the citizens of the first world country?

Those countries did not become prosperous by accident. They are not going to "enriched" by the presence of foreign-born people who have no loyalty or history associated with their new country.

You don't suddenly make every poor person in the world educated and prosperous by sending them to first world countries. You just weaken the rich countries you send them to.

No country has an obligation to provide residence and assistance for foreigners any more than any individual on this forum has an obligation to provide food and housing for any random person who knocks on your door. Sure, it might be nice of you to let some homeless guy sleep on your couch, but if you operate your life by that principle, pretty soon you'll find yourself living in a rundown halfway house.

A properly functioning government should place the needs and well-being of its own citizens ahead of those of foreigners. Period. A government that fails to do this, or worse, intentionally does the opposite, deserves to be removed from power.

Post: #29

(09-19-2013 01:57 AM)scorpion Wrote:  Why should any first world country encourage or even tolerate an influx of third world peoples into its borders? How is that in any way desirable for the citizens of the first world country?

Because the rule that they are qualiying for, refugee and assylum status, isn't isloated to first worlders only. They are arriving under a principle that was blind to the developmental status of the origin country.

Post: #30

btw, I am of caucasion descent.

Post: #31

OK, then you have white guilt, or white self-loathing.

Post: #32

Quote:That's the image I think and it is incorrect. These are normally high quality people who are very motivated to get the fuck of out of dodge (normally a war zone!) and they are willing to risk *everything* to do so. Do you really think they are just going to get to Australia and just rest on their laurels? Those who want to come to Australia think it is the land of milk and honey. They are often people who are very materialistic and love to work. They will fit right into Australia and often do.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/this-f...ess-2013-7

Man, I can't believe business insider writes such trash. Now I understand why they canned Pax.

Quote:Myth 3: We take more asylum seekers because we're a rich, First World country
REALITY: According to Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, the reverse is true. "The burden of helping the world's forcibly displaced people is starkly uneven," he said. "Poor countries host vastly more displaced people than wealthier ones. While anti-refugee sentiment is heard loudest in industrialised countries, developing nations host 80 per cent of the world's refugees."

If you take 30 percent of the world's population and stuff it into developed countries (who only have 20 percent, remember) then it would more than DOUBLE the population of every developed country on the planet. It would turn every first-world country into a third-world country overnight.

They didn't even spell industrialized correctly.

Post: #33

(09-19-2013 02:19 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  OK, then you have white guilt, or white self-loathing.

nah, I just don't think white people are superior to brown people or black people. And I also believe that white people have as much to learn from people of other races as they have to learn from us.

(09-19-2013 03:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  It would turn every first-world country into a third-world country overnight.

Interesting view!

But I don't really buy it. Countries in scandinavia are taking in a helluva lot of people from third world countries and there are not likely to sink into some kind of third worldism! It seems to me, that the people adapt to the country, and its not like you suddenly have shanty towns and open sewers in these countries. I think the people who emigrate are likely to be more "go getter", likely to be people who have already accrued wealth in their home country and live pretty much 1st world lives in that country anyway.

However, I can see the perspectives of people in countries in Scandanavia, who have a certain traditional culture and racial profile, and then they become swamped with people from other countries.

But honestly, in Australia, I generally prefer the immigrants to "the skips". They generally have more getup and go, and are super switched on and motivated.

It takes these people lot of effort and passion to get to Australia, and they are inevitably disillusioned with the country after a short time, as it turns out to be quite a bit different from the "paradise" they thought it would be!

Quote:They didn't even spell industrialized correctly.

This is an Australian article. That is how industrialised is spelt in Australia yo.

Post: #34

(09-18-2013 07:08 AM)Que enspastic Wrote:  Either Shorten or Albanese would make a solid and combative Leader of the Opposition. The new caucus rules will make it v difficult to change Labor leaders which is a good thing. Both seem happy to work with the winner.

Personally I think Shorten will win, as he has the backing of the Labor caucus. All he needs now is the vote of the Labor rank and file.

Albanese is easily the favourite of the rank of file, because:

a. the rank and file is skewed towards Socialist Left, unlike the caucus which favours Labor Unity
b. Albanese is more popular with the public overall

I think Albo will win because I think his lead amongst the rank and file is greater than Bill Shorten's lead in the caucus.

Tony Abbott makes himself minister for women
^This has to be the greatest troll of feminists in Australian history.

I actually underestimated just how unpopular Abbott was going to be as PM amongst young people. I was expecting the post-election rage on campus and Facebook to die down as time passed but it isn't (yet). In a bizarre twist, the Socialist Alternative of all people are making a killing selling "Fuck Tony Abbott" shirts on campus. Surprised that the far-right Young Liberals omega brigade didn't think of that idea first.

Post: #35

(09-19-2013 12:26 PM)P Dog Wrote:  Tony Abbott makes himself minister for women
^This has to be the greatest troll of feminists in Australian history.

There can be no greater troll. This is the greatest trolling of an entire nation's women that I have ever seen.



Abbott would probably redirect half the budget for the women's ministry to RooshV if he knew about the forum.

Some quotes on women from the Minister for Women:

Quote:1. ‘I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons’

2. ‘I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak’

3. ‘What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it’s going to go up in price and their own power bills when they switch the iron on are going to go up, every year…’

4. 'Abortion is the easy way out. It’s hardly surprising that people should choose the most convenient exit from awkward situations.'

5. 'While I think men and women are equal, they are also different and I think it's inevitable and I don't think it's a bad thing at all that we always have, say, more women doing things like physiotherapy and an enormous number of women simply doing housework.'

6. 'I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question... [their virginity] is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don't give it to someone lightly, that's what I would say.'

Post: #36

Feminists not happy.

Post: #37

Hey, Australia now ranks equal to Saudi Arabia with one female cabinent minister!

Post: #38

Post: #39

/delete

Post: #40

Tony Abbott is catholic as well, trained to become a priest - so I wonder what he thinks of the pope saying this today?

"The feminine genius is needed wherever we make important decisions."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/o...story.html

Post: #41

[quote='scorpion' pid='537307' dateline='1379573856']
Why should any first world country encourage or even tolerate an influx of third world peoples into its borders? How is that in any way desirable for the citizens of the first world country?

Cheap labor

Post: #42

[quote='scorpion' pid='537307' dateline='1379573856']
Why should any first world country encourage or even tolerate an influx of third world peoples into its borders? How is that in any way desirable for the citizens of the first world country?

Cheap labor

Post: #43

(09-18-2013 03:57 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Australia impoverishes itself whenever it takes in a bunch of 3rd-worlders who leech off the system.

(09-19-2013 01:08 AM)tiggaling Wrote:  Actually, the quality of the refugees who go to Australia is normally very high and they do not want to leech off the system. These people have often been running small to medium sized businesses in their country when the shit hits the fan.

Australia's situation is a lot more complicated than that Samseau. Most third world immigrants for some time now have come from Asia and Asians on average end up with above average income and educational attainment. Meanwhile the predominately working class manufacturing sides of my city have a lot of Balkan/Yugoslav and Middle Eastern (particularly Lebanese and Turkish) immigrants, plus a lot of older Italians, Greeks and Maltese who used to dominate those areas and in parts still do. The Asians raised there usually go to university and become upwardly mobile. Next to no non-Asian people from those areas Anglo, "Wog" or otherwise end up in highly paid jobs or going to prestigious universities.

If you looked at a map of electorates in my city, the multitude of seats home to a lot of post-war European immigrants are much more left-leaning (the safest Labor seats in the country actually) and worse off economically than the seat which covers tons of recent Chinese immigrants. Food for thought.

Post: #44

Quote:

(09-19-2013 03:43 AM)Samseau Wrote:  It would turn every first-world country into a third-world country overnight.

Interesting view!

But I don't really buy it. Countries in scandinavia are taking in a helluva lot of people from third world countries and there are not likely to sink into some kind of third worldism!

Actually, there is a ton of disagreement and the quality of living is dropping in all of the Scandinavian cities where third-worlders come in. Rape wave, the development of ghettos, etc.

Quote: It seems to me, that the people adapt to the country, and its not like you suddenly have shanty towns and open sewers in these countries. I think the people who emigrate are likely to be more "go getter", likely to be people who have already accrued wealth in their home country and live pretty much 1st world lives in that country anyway.

No, you're wrong on all counts. These immigrants do arrive and ghettos appear almost overnight. Once they move into a neighborhood the white people move out and all that remains is a small pocket of third-world living inside of a first world country.

You can see for yourself, how in a country such as America, whites naturally segregate themselves and leave minorities to fester in ghettos: http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer

The above happens in every country in the world.

Quote:However, I can see the perspectives of people in countries in Scandanavia, who have a certain traditional culture and racial profile, and then they become swamped with people from other countries.

Assimilation takes generations to occur properly. A population of 10 million can only realistically handle no more than 1 million immigrants over 20-30 years without the creation of a parallel culture.

Quote:But honestly, in Australia, I generally prefer the immigrants to "the skips". They generally have more getup and go, and are super switched on and motivated.

It takes these people lot of effort and passion to get to Australia, and they are inevitably disillusioned with the country after a short time, as it turns out to be quite a bit different from the "paradise" they thought it would be!

There's nothing wrong with immigration. But it needs to be legal and in accordance with the customs of the host community. People showing up and demanding refugee status, as tragic as their situation may be, do not deserve money or residency from anyone.

Post: #45

Also, I can't believe there are people on this board who criticize Abott for not having enough females in office.

Why are you on this board?

Post: #46

Australians are more opposed to method of arrival than refugees per se.

Huge cultural tradition of accepting refugees and turning them into solid citizenry.

Would represent a really backward step to stop intake completely when it has been a resounding national success story since the 1950s.

As previous posters have pointed out, refugee intake is around 15,000 per year in a country of 22.7m.

Also cheap labour.

Also national and international sense of responsibility: South Vietnamese refugees when Australia abandoned South Vietnam, Iraqi refugees post-Australian invasion etc.

Post: #47

The custom of Australia has been to accept refugees for a very long time now. Even when other Western countries like the U.S were turning back asylum seekers boats during WW2 Australia was taking everyone in. Australia's organized refugee intake is basically a non-issue here, it's only about 9% of our total immigration intake in the first place. The only immigration issue that's being debated a lot here at the moment is boat people. Remember our attitude towards immigrants is heavily shaped by the fact that 43.1% of Australians have an immigrant parent.

Post: #48

Almost 35% of Melbourne residents were born overseas.

Post: #49

(09-19-2013 04:28 PM)Que enspastic Wrote:  Almost 35% of Melbourne residents were born overseas.

Easy not to notice that though considering how many of them are white. 5% of Australia's population was born in the UK.

Post: #50

(09-19-2013 01:08 AM)tiggaling Wrote:  White Australians are largely just racist, ignorant people.

I live in a moderate-sized country town that's as multicultural as you can get: Aboriginal, Lebanese, Indian, Asian, Italian, Tongan and Maori. Interestingly, the high value white girls all try to land a Maori boyfriend. We have two Indian and three Asian grocery stories. The Doctors here are mostly Indian. No trouble at all.

My town recently became home to a large population of Sudanese Refugees. Suddenly, street violence and gang warfare is enough of a problem that the professional concerned handwringers are organising mediated sitdowns to stop the violence... between the Sudanese and the Aboriginals.

Keep blaming Evil White Folks: we're the laziest scapegoat in the world.