Australia Uses Harsh Graphic Novel To Ward Off Refugees
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
This would have been just as effective and a lot funnier/less depressing if it was instead titled, "Australia will Kill You" and was just filled with different ways that the environment and wildlife WILL eventually kill you.
God I am loving this thread. Is this what Escapists from other countries see when they read threads about the US? Cause the ideologies clashing and people arguing are just wonderful to watch when it's something that doesn't really affect me. As for the whole refugee thing, I'm not from Australia so I can't judge whats going on there, but I think refugees should be welcomed with open but somewhat cautious arms.
Quite right.Chaosritter said:
England has gone out of their way to accommodate refugees, particularly from predominantly Muslim nations. Rather than present a long-winded argument as to how this has gone badly for them, I'll just invite anyone who believes otherwise to Google "sharia law london". Go ahead, take your time. If you still disagree with me, then there's nothing anyone can do to change your mind.
Wow, just the day before I posted that.IceForce said:
Mm yeah. Well, what does it have to do with geek culture in general? So the Australian government made a graphic novel... well, still, it's only verrry loosely associated with "geek culture" because it's a graphic novel. Other media content is great, but I don't exactly come to the escapist to read about international politics... for that, I have other places which are actually dedicated to politics... not to say the Escapist shouldn't cover political articles if they're important and wide-ranging issues, but this is pretty trivial *shrug*
I'm pretty much in the same camp, there needs to a tighter check on illegal immigration, which is unacceptable. I do get tired of the childish way the Democrats and Republicans bicker though. It's not so much about immigration as the way a vocal minority react to it (the Coke commercial for instance).Therumancer said:
My thoughts exactly, news on the site sometimes ranges from commercials for fast food, to pictures of sexy cosplay and serious real world issues. I've heard of a job position at other journalism workplaces that usually filters out content, damn can't remember it starts with E and ends with torn..´. damn the middle bit escapists me.ron1n said:
This shouldn't be on a gaming site, might as well be reporting on world news like the Olympic games or state address or Syria. Speaking of which...
Upper middleclass!? Refugees leaving turkey in droves!? Where are you getting your facts from. Also way to go on generalising I can almost imagine a bunch of guys in top hats and canes roaming the world in rafts looking to exploit countries... well that kind of is true, but they don't ride boats they ride private jets.Chaosritter said:
I've worked in the UN through the Danish emergency management agency for three months in the Lebanon UNRWA camp. If conditions back then were any indication of what the Syrian refugees are going through, than nobody with the possibility would want to remain living there. I can only imagine that the Syrian mission is even worse because it's new. At least the UNRWA has been around long enough to have routines and conditions improve with time.
I know some people claim to flee their countries because of oppression, when in most cases it's about lack of jobs. But I also know that it doesn't hurt to turn your empathy on once in a while, even though the world lends itself to cynicism easily. Especially when reading comments like yours.
The situation in Syria is genuine, the rich and well to do in Syria have already found a way to survive without loosing too much. The people in the camps are in serious plight, not to mention the people living in Syria currently.
1. The Spanish were in North America long before northern Europeans.Therumancer said:
1a) Mexicans were in what is now the USA, before it was even the USA.
2. Try explaining your latter point to civilians in Syria.
All Glory to Aristovka, I mean Australia.
This really just puzzles the fuck out of me, I mean, the intended audience probably won't read this, and this only serves to make the rest of the world hate Australia. They willingly portrayed themselves as the bad guys? I mean fuck, the Nazis were smart enough to make those they oppressed seem like the bad guys, (not saying the Aussies are Nazis just an extreme example.) A more realistic example is how other countries like the USA is all patriotic about true Americans, and England is all n about how "Britain is for the British", but I don't know anyone who would actually be this blatant and this stupid.
I mean fuck actually making yourselves look like the villains from Prototype? That's dumb. Real dumb.
This really just puzzles the fuck out of me, I mean, the intended audience probably won't read this, and this only serves to make the rest of the world hate Australia. They willingly portrayed themselves as the bad guys? I mean fuck, the Nazis were smart enough to make those they oppressed seem like the bad guys, (not saying the Aussies are Nazis just an extreme example.) A more realistic example is how other countries like the USA is all patriotic about true Americans, and England is all n about how "Britain is for the British", but I don't know anyone who would actually be this blatant and this stupid.
I mean fuck actually making yourselves look like the villains from Prototype? That's dumb. Real dumb.
Yeah, just without any tact, compassion, or respect for human life. That and the fact that Australia sees a low level of immigration by sea compared to other similarly wealthy countries and is more than capable of treating them humanely and processing them efficiently even if they are refused citizenship. This makes the government's hard-line stance against refugees look like nothing more than xenophobia and conservative pandering, using mistreatment and intimidation to deter people who are trying to find a better life for themselves and, in many cases, their families.RedBackDragon said:
Point 1. Means a whole lot of nothing. When you get down to it someone else occupied pretty much every piece of land before the current people did. During the age of conquest, which Spain was a big player in mind you (having basically eradicated civilizations in America themselves) there were winners and losers. Britan and it's colonial descendants did fairly well, Spain and it's colonial descendants not so much. Unlike a lot of people I don't feel particularly guilty about it since the world basically sucks and at the end it all pretty much comes down to who the biggest bastard was. Yep Mexico occupied more territory than it has now, and it lost that territory and it's simply put no longer theirs. The age of conquest pretty much ended and they are still sitting around butthurt over it, that's really not my problem. I was not a conqueror and most of the lands disputed by latinos/Hispanics were indeed conquered, but have been part of the US longer than anyone I know has been alive, so as far as I'm concerned they can get over themselves. It's not like they can even sit there and go pining for the age of conquest either, because if we actually fought about it there would be even less Mexico when it was over than there is now.Gerishnakov said:
Point 2. Syria more or less represents a textbook example of the problem. The Muslim culture occupying the region is part of the problem and something they haven't gotten over, it leads to a lot of the factional infighting. There isn't really a truly progressive group on either side, which is why I've been a staunch supporter of the US staying out of it. You have two groups of theocratic buttheads, an oppressive leadership, and a resistance backed by groups like Al Quaida. Pretty much everyone in the "civilian" population is actually on one side or the other based on religious affiliation even if they actually aren't fighting. At the end of the day it really doesn't much matter who wins, your dealing with a theocratic neo barbarian culture. The best solution for all involved is to contain the poison as much as possible and let these guys all wipe each other out. As I've said, don't send troops, make popcorn, and the last thing we want is these guys coming into our countries as refugees and bringing their garbage with them.
If these guys decided to drop the theocratic "faith over reason" garbage and decided to progress their own society as opposed to finding reasons for new factions to appear and start shooting each other, things would go a lot better. Rather you see these guys spending months planning to flee and come to the USA, when that is time they could spend you know... trying to better their society. Even if they died it would be fairly constructive. Instead they come to the US and squat, pull their religious garbage with everyone else, and even if they don't actively fight provide support to terrorists and muslim trouble makers which expands on dissent when we've already got enough trouble on our plate.
See, I tend to be very militant, but in places where I don't feel military action is warrant, that doesn't mean that I think the people in the middle of that mess should come to the USA and bring it with them. I've actually been of the opinion that we should actually suspend all immigration from The Middle East, with very few exceptions (like Israel) until they sort out their problems and can be dealt with as one rational culture to another.
Wow, so many people getting up bogans, saying they are all racist... that in itself is racist. I live near a town (within an hours distance) called Bogan Gate, one of the biggish towns here has streets called Bogan Street and Bogan Lane... Why the racism?
ot: Realistically, as someone who got a job straight out of school, and never receiving any government allowance (like youth allowance), even when I applied I got denied because statistically I did not need it from where I live. At one stage in my life, I had no job for several months, and while I was looking for a new job I had to pay a car loan, fuel, food, and rent but the government would not give me job seekers allowance, even though I was actively seeking employment with no success. so why should someone who has left their country receive higher priority over a tax paying, true blue citizen?
I live near 3 dead beat families who have no intention of finding a job, their kids are always out on the streets stealing and vandalising the town, yet they receive benefits such as free rent, electricity, water and so on. They fall into the same category as the immigrants. I feel as a tax payer, all my hard earned money it being taken from me and given to them instead of improving education, hospitals, and public transport (after seeing how other countries run, I can now see how much of a benefit a good transport system can give)
Anyway, I am expecting a lot of rage here, because not everyone shares an opinion, some people are happy that tax goes to helping families to get back onto their feet, or just maybe I have seen too much of the dark side of communities to see the benefit that it is providing...
ot: Realistically, as someone who got a job straight out of school, and never receiving any government allowance (like youth allowance), even when I applied I got denied because statistically I did not need it from where I live. At one stage in my life, I had no job for several months, and while I was looking for a new job I had to pay a car loan, fuel, food, and rent but the government would not give me job seekers allowance, even though I was actively seeking employment with no success. so why should someone who has left their country receive higher priority over a tax paying, true blue citizen?
I live near 3 dead beat families who have no intention of finding a job, their kids are always out on the streets stealing and vandalising the town, yet they receive benefits such as free rent, electricity, water and so on. They fall into the same category as the immigrants. I feel as a tax payer, all my hard earned money it being taken from me and given to them instead of improving education, hospitals, and public transport (after seeing how other countries run, I can now see how much of a benefit a good transport system can give)
Anyway, I am expecting a lot of rage here, because not everyone shares an opinion, some people are happy that tax goes to helping families to get back onto their feet, or just maybe I have seen too much of the dark side of communities to see the benefit that it is providing...
Dumb luck to be born here, but a right once I was born.Shamanic Rhythm said:
Let me be painfully blunt, the world sucks, I point this out in a lot of my posts, and it's the bottom line of just about every post I write. There are no real good guys, just degrees of bastard and who gets to write the history books after everything is done.
The first world IS a nice place to live, but all countries, especially the most tolerant ones like the US, have their own problems with poverty, and every other kind of misfortune you can image. Sure life is better than in the rest of that world, but those problems represent a rising tide that does threaten the fabric and success of society. One of the biggest problems is that we keep pouring more fuel on that fire. As we start to assimilate people into the culture, we dump in more refugees and minorities to keep the problems and cultural conflicts fresh. Poverty rises, urban blight spread, and really if we keep going we're going to pretty much destroy the first world rather than elevating people, then nobody will have a better life... it's easy for someone to sit there on the out side and say "I don't care" or "what does it matter if you add me and my family" or even hope that the first world collapses out of envy, but honestly I don't want to see that happen. Yep, I'm fairly content with the way things are even if I'm not one of the most fortunate people in the US right now (though due to what I have given brain damage, I suppose I am in a lot of ways, I'm just not anywhere near the top, or even middle, of society at the end of the day), I do not want to give up what I have even if people out there are more miserable. Sort of like my old answer to the whole "I thought I was unfortunate for having no shoes, until I saw a man with no feet", which is the fact that someone being less fortunate than you doesn't make you happy. In that metaphor your feet are still cold, you still hurt them walking around, and odds are if your on the streets with no shoes it's only a matter of time before you wind up losing your feet too. You might feel sorry for that guy, but that doesn't mean you don't have your own situation to watch out for.
This is not America we are discussing. Australia has far better financial infrastructure to support immigration, and the fabric of society won't unweave by letting people in. You said in an earlier post that it was a classist issue, and it may be over there. I can tell you with absolute certainty that for most people here it's due to bigotry. This is a country that actually had a policy called the 'White Australia Policy'. I've lived in Jakarta. I've seen poverty. It's easy to sit back and say "Well why don't they make their country better?", but it isn't a matter of lazy citizens or an inferior species or whatever you seem to think, it's a matter of social and political circumstances that are out of their control. This isn't something they have done wrong, it is something wrong that has been done to them. You cannot fathom what life is like for these people until you've seen a proper slum or warzone. Can you call yourself a progressive nation if you're enthusiastically willing to let people live and die right outside your borders in absolute poverty because you can't be fucked to help them?Therumancer said:
Your ignorance astounds me. Have you ever met a Muslim? You may have heard this before but the vast majority don't actually hate white people. I'm friends with a Saudi Arabian Muslim bloke, and he loves Australia more than I do. He still follows the al-Quran, doesn't drink, doesn't eat pork and prays five times a day. But no, he's an undesirable to white people, so we shouldn't let him or anybody vaguely like him into our countries. Because the Muslim world is a homogenous society where everybody follows the will and beliefs of Osama Bin Laden or whatever you think.
For starters your responding to a contextual response made to another poster (Shamanic Rhythm I believe) I know very well what country we're talking about.Angerwing said:
Secondly, don't try and project racism on my arguments, ever. I'm getting very tired of it, and soon I'm going to start ignoring or reporting people that do that, despite my general policy of not reporting people ever. Let me be painfully blunt, I'm someone who takes unpopular positions as a matter of course. I also don't tend to mince words which a lot of people think I should do to be "more diplomatic" I say what I think. If I was racist I'd just come flat out and say so, and to be honest I find the insinuation that I'm basing arguments on people being "inferior species of humanity" rather insulting, just as I do when I talk about big picture issues of overpopulation and people like to imply it's about killing non-whites or whatever. To be brutally honest with you, my being one of the least racist people your ever likely to meet is part of what makes me so "offensive" on these topics. See if certain kinds of people were inferior that would be an excuse that could be used to defend them, as I believe there are no real "races" and just one species "humanity" despite the way people tend to group up with others that look like them, it means I have the same basic expectations of everyone, and will thus be judgemental when people fail to meet them or make strides in that direction. For the most part I address things in terms of cultures (which you might have noticed) which seem to have the most effect on things, and really on that level I think some are better than others, some work to progress the people in them, others hold the people back. That said a culture can be changed or broken, unlike say genetics, so I feel no guilt in holding people responsible for not trying to change theirs. To qualify an earlier statement of sorts, about people "putting in half as much effort to improve conditions where they were as they do immigrating" the point is that in trying to fix their home culture or replace it the worst that's going to happen is they will die. The same basic risk they take when they decide to say hire on with a smuggler and risk getting murdered by some modern pirate for lulz. The only real difference is that one way they are trying to help themselves, the other they are trying to make themselves someone else's responsibility.
When it comes to the US being a "progressive nation" we've done more to try and help people around the world than just about anyone else in history, ever. We have 17 trillion dollars in debt in part caused by this nonsense and are running at a deficit. The US also has it's own poverty to deal with and it's own social order to maintain, problems which are growing worse than ever before. You'd have a point if the US hadn't been making any efforts and seen it fail, we have. Indeed it could be argued the way we just spent 10 years running around Iran and Afghanistan was all about this, as we didn't just level them and go home, we tried to go into those countries and make things better (even if to be fair our own politicians didn't help the goal) only to have the entire thing backfire, because at the end of the day all you can do is deal with symptoms and keep nations and cultures from screwing with you by wrecking people who cross you. You cannot force someone to improve themselves, which is why in removing the theocratic loonies from power they were replacd by new constitutions declaring these places Islamic nations and paving the way for new theocratic loonie toons. No rational government, no separation of church and state, no women's rights. Likewise we've spend billions upon billions of dollars around the world building infrastructure, training people, and providing supplies, in the end those people don't improve themselves, they just come to the US with their hands out screaming for our resources as if it's an entitlement.
That said I suppose part of my overall position is that you really can't be a progressive nation the way we thought it might work. Especially seeing as I have pointed out earlier, the only way to arguably save humanity at this point is to wipe out 90% of the population, unify it under one central government and culture, and do everything possible to keep the population as steady as possible until we get far out into space enough to start colonizing. But that's something I've covered in other posts in a lot of detail already (and gets well off topic, you can find some break downs on this usually in threads about space travel and such).
When it comes to Australian attitudes, well all I can say is that a lot of Australians apparently disagree with you. I doubt it's because they are racist or bigoted, they probably look at the utter mess the US has turned into with it's immigration policies and doesn't want to deal with the same kinds of headaches. If these people weren't just refugees looking to leech off of Australia and better themselves, and had something to contribute, things might be a lot different, which is my entire point about classism and economics, and the problem with immigration in general. Besides while it's not politically correct to have heard some Australians tell it Australia has enough of a problem dealing with "indigenous peoples" in the form of Aboriginals who do things like get high off of huffing chilled gasoline fumes (with legal battles over the right of gas stations to sell this), and whom have also basically surrounded the Aussie Parliament building (I think it was) with a "Tent Embassy", not to mention creating massive fires when they have wisely insisted on lighting ceremonial bonfires when the conditions were dangerous, leading to some truly massive conflagrations. Under the circumstances I can pretty well see why Australia wouldn't want to start bringing in immigrants to form shanty towns and gypsy communities all over the place while having their hands out for a public dole on top of it... and unfortunately that's what it amounts to. For every 1 immigrant success story that might get on TV or whatever to be inspirational, there are probably 10000 or more wallowing in violence and poverty and doing nothing to better themselves except get as much out of social services as they can. Does Australia have a good rate of employment vs. unemployment? Probably better than the US I'd imagine. Well if you don't want that to change, you don't want mass migration from second and third world countries.
As far as Muslims go, yes in fact I've known a good number of them. Including at least one who helped train me in (snickers) not trusting Muslims. That's kind of an inside joke though, has to do with the guys who taught my anti-terrorism classes (I even had a certificate from Homeland Security at one point, not that my employer did much with the information or training, they just wanted it on paper).
One thing to understand is that the term "Muslim" refers very specifically to the culture of The Middle East. While a lot of people who have been born and raised in other cultures call themselves "Muslims" it's debatable as a lot of Muslims from overseas do not acknowledge them. For the purposes of my posts I tend to separate "Arab", "Muslim", and "Islamic". In general if you meet someone whose religion you cannot clearly identify (much like most Christians in the civilized world) unless you ask, who happens to be Islamic, he's not really a Muslim. Either that or he's pretty deep cover (which is half the problem with terrorists, the guys who know them might not ever suspect it). For the most part it's not an issue however. Being Arabic is more or less irrelevant since that's an ethnicity not a religion, even if most Arabs do tend to be Islamics of one stripe or another.
One of the reasons why I break things down this way (and no I am not going to make semantics games out of it) is because a lot of the scariest stuff about terrorism and what to watch out for is information that comes from Americanized Islamics, who themselves deal with Muslims and engage in counter espionage and stuff while having their ear to the grape vine. Basically you'll find that a lot of the most anti-Muslim people your ever going to meet are Arabs, and truthfully that's probably a big part of why "Gitmo" and things like that exists, since we can't really risk our own people inside these organizations being outed for the sake of explaining to a bunch of civilians how or why we know something... but well, I'm getting well off the subject.
Another thing to consider here is that one of the biggest problems in the US right now comes from a side group that can be generally called "Black Muslims" who get involved in organizations like "Nation Of Thisslam". They follow what amounts to a genocidal anti-white philosophy backed by Islam. Their basic religious sect revolves around this guy called "Yakub" (Or Jakob/Jacob) who was an ancient scientist/sorcerer who was obsessed with magnets which lead to his corruption. One thing Yakub did was master genetics, which he used to create the white man, who is not a true human, to enslave and oppress the true black man. By prophecy the reign of the false man was intended to last a few thousand years, but the black man is supposed to rise up and destroy the false man and retake his place as the master of the world. This was incidently part of the inspiration for Charles Manson and his cult, Manson borrowed the idea for his "Helter Skelter" which was supposed to be a great war between whites and blacks, which decadent white folk would lose. His cult was supposed to be in part about preparing for that apocalypse to make it easier for the white man to rise up again and in turn take his place of dominance.... if you get bored look up "Yakub" it's on Wikipedia (I've put up links before) which does a fairly good job of covering the basics... but pretty much the more you dig into it the more racist and bug nuts insane it gets.
At any rate, the point of this is simply to correct you. Most Muslims do not hate white people, that is true. But huge numbers of them, including one of the most major movements in the US, by definition want all white people dead. Most serious Muslims in The Middle East "don't hate" white people the same way the inquisition didn't hate pagans when you get down to it. They want to "save us", albeit most of us have to die for that to happen. What's more in the process of saving us, they would educate us that we are subservient to god's chosen people and messengers, who happen to be Arabic. That's a key element of a lot of Muslim faiths, that a given people are "the chosen ones" so to speak and when you strip everything else away it's why you wind up with so much Muslim on Muslim violence which basically comes down to who the most favored are, as their interpetations of Scripture are what everyone is supposed to be following. This is also what leads into the concept of a "Jihad" or Holy War, which is a call for all Muslims to put aside their differences to deal with threats from Non-Muslims. Guys like Saddam and Bin Ladin have also put on airs of being a "modern Saladin" because Saladin was the most successful leader to ever call a Jihad and get all the tribes and sects to join forces for a while (against the Crusaders).
What's more even when it's relatively friendly you still see Muslims not wanting to assimilate into other societies. Indeed in the US we have seen negotiations taking the form of "Muslims" and "Americans" despite everyone supposedly being an American. The division heavily exists from that end, and in a lot of cases Muslims themselves separate themselves from the rest of society, and work towards trying to get special privleges and such like being able to violate workplace dress codes for religions reasons, or being given special prayer rooms by major employers, and
similar things.
None of this has much to do with anything, since this isn't specifically about Muslims, but considering the problems in the US, the riots in France, and other nations being upset with how many Muslims are running around when they decide to start making noise and such, it's not surprising if Australia doesn't exactly want more of them coming into the country. In a general sense it comes down to "do you want to be culturally Australian"? As a largely rational country this means rationality comes first, and spirituality a distant second in how you live. Your typical refugee born and raised in say Afghanistan isn't going to see it that way, and is still likely to approach things with religion being a major, if not the major, aspect of his life, and of course as the numbers of people like this grow so is the assertiveness on which they try and force their interests on the rest of society even if it doesn't turn to actual terrorism. Again, look at the riots in France, that right there probably gave Muslims more negative PR than most of the terrorist attacks.
Them coming from Afghanistan and the Middle East sets off alarm bells in your head? Wouldn't you be expecting refugees from war-torn areas?RicoADF said:
To address your first point, many refugees are not in a position to receive detailed information on their various options. Australia is far away, making it easy for people smugglers to spread misinformation about their chances, while Europe is close, making such misinformation harder. As others have pointed out, the "safety" of being a refugee trying to get into Europe isn't really all that great.
To the second, you don't need to be that wealthy to scrape up a few thousand dollars. That doesn't make you rich, or middle class, or guarantee that you are living a comfortable life free of persecution. You might be above the poorest of the poor, but by world standards that doesn't make you a millionaire. The truly destitute are often the ones stuck behind in the warzones, but that doesn't mean those that trickle through to Australia aren't genuine refugees. Our acceptance rate would indicate that most of those that do come through are real refugees, which just makes our treatment of them all the more appalling in retrospect.
Regarding the "why not take legitimate channels" query, there are multiple factors at play. There's the misinformation I mentioned previously for one, people don't always have access to the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision on their chances following the legitimate route. I mean, really, if you're in Syria and the government has besieged your city, what are your odds of getting an internet connection to research normal Australian immigration procedures? It would also make reaching those planes a bit more of an obstacle. On the other hand, all you need is word of mouth to find a guy who could smuggle your city out of the country, down to some port, and onto a vessel set for Australia.
Seriously, you said it yourself. If the legitimate option were cheaper (which it sometimes is, and sometimes isn't), why wouldn't refugees take it? Your default assumption is that they're hiding something. They must be terrorists or criminals. But the fact is that we accept the overwhelming majority of these people to be legitimate refugees eventually. It just seems rather more likely, particularly as someone that's been to the places these refugees come from, that we're dealing with ignorance rather than anything else.
Your first and second points I like to think I addressed above, and the fourth I largely agree with. Very few people have any real understanding of the issue. I've spent a lot of time around refugees, in the countries they come from, and studying the root causes of the issue, but even I feel woefully inadequate when it comes to understanding the details of the issue.Tarcolt said:
However, regarding the above, terrorists can afford planes. Yeah, the security is better at first glance, but think about it. Boats very rarely actually reach the Australian mainland. They get intercepted by our military, while a terrorist with a reasonably low profile just has to deal with customs officials at an airport. Refugees have to spend years in refugee camps, there's no way to estimate how long it will be until they get out, and when they finally do it's only after a series of interviews and being subjected to some quite close scrutiny. If you fly in, you shouldn't have to spend more than a few hours before you're loose in the city. For any serious terrorist plot or plan, flying is more reliable and far, far faster.
The question should be more on whether or not the way we treat people in refugee camps is more likely to make them become terrorists when we finally concede they had a real reason to come here. But let me quite quickly make the point that our entire legal system is predicated on the idea that you can't lock someone up for something they might, potentially, do in the future. Well, not unless you're in Queensland...
Now before you all go judging Australia, think about the history of the country. The last time they had attempted genocide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia_%281788%E2%80%931850%29], and a bunch of foreign influences diluted (and tried to wipe out) Australian culture.
Considering all this, it's pretty obvious why the current Australian government has a pretty good reason to want to stem the tide of immigration... they don't want what they did to the original inhabitants to happen to them.
Considering all this, it's pretty obvious why the current Australian government has a pretty good reason to want to stem the tide of immigration... they don't want what they did to the original inhabitants to happen to them.
I'm not going to respond to every point you made in your rambling, but I'll respond to a few. You can't say xenophobic statements and broad, sweeping generalisations and then be offended when somebody calls you out on your racist crap. It's easy to look at it like "they can try to change their nation and possibly die, or leave and possibly die", but these people don't want to die. They want to survive, and they want their families to survive. I don't see how you can't understand that.Therumancer said:
Not talking about the United States! I also think you vastly overestimate the amount of people who seek asylum just to claim welfare. In Australia they are entitled to the same welfare support as an Australian citizen in the same situation as them. I think that's fair, as our society is based around multiculturalism.
Apart from the fact that this is seriously off topic, I think the fact that you believe mass genocide is the most effective way to save humanity says more positive things about my point of view than yours.
Australia isn't the US. We are far more financially robust. We have an enormous non-white population from various countries, and it works out fine over here. We don't really have a problem with the Aboriginals, the only issues are more relation building. There are a few issues up in the Aboriginal communities in Northern Territory, but they are issues that are insular to those communities. The petrol thing is overblown, and basically just an excuse to shit talk Aboriginals. I live within a mile of the Tent Embassy. It's outside Old Parliament House (which isn't used for political matters at all), and it doesn't impact anything at all. People who live here aren't disgruntled about it, it's a part of the cultural history here. Besides, most bushfires here are caused by weather events (lightning, etc), arsonists, or dipshit kids playing with fire out in the bush. I don't know why you're trying to rant about indigenous Australians, but you're wrong about the situation anyway. "For every 1 immigrant success story that might get on TV or whatever to be inspirational, there are probably 10000 or more wallowing in violence and poverty and doing nothing to better themselves except get as much out of social services as they can." I think it's the exact opposite of what you say there. We're a country with the population of Texas living in a space the size of the US with the 12th highest GDP in the world. We can support a few asylum seekers.
"Of course I know what I'm talking about, I took anti-terrorism classes!" Alright, I don't like using other people's experiences to validate my opinions, but my father worked in Australian intelligence for years, specialising in terrorism in Indonesia and South East Asia. He has lived several years in the country, and he knows quite a bit about it. My mum works in the Department of Defence, dealing with media releases and ministerial communication. Part of her job involves dealing with detention centres, and as such, knows quite a bit about their current state. Both of them share my views on the treatment of asylum seekers. It is a human rights violation, and it needs to be fixed.
That's incorrect.
I don't know why you're lecturing me about Islam, but you obviously don't know a lot about it. Muslims definitely do not think they're the 'chosen ones' of God, that's more of a Judaistic element. Islamic tradition holds Christians and Jews as holy in the eyes of God, as they are Ahl al-Kitab, or 'People of the Book', and jihad holds very deep religious significance to them, as it represents a spiritual struggle. Military jihad is considered the least of the jihads though, and striving to maintain Muslim ideals in the face of oppression is more in line with how it is viewed. Of course, I'm certain you think Muslim ideals are antithetic to your way of life, so that probably sounds even worse, hahahaha. Your views on Islam are ridiculously ignorant. Do you honestly believe that they want to kill non-Muslims as part of their religion? Holy shit. There is little room for interpretation in the Koran. Extremist groups like the Wahhabi sect of Islam are due to willful misinterpretation. I'm just scraping the iceberg on how blatantly incorrect you are about this, because it basically just seems like your generalisations and insane opinions that you are presenting as fact.