• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

No more Africans (5 Viewers)

S1M0

LOLtheist
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
1,598
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Speaking of which, are Egyptians included in this as well?

Edit: Also, Syrian and Iraqi refugees? They won't integrate nearly as well as Africans would.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
I don't know, the discussion seems to be very focused on Sudanese refugees. I remember Tamworth was having big issues with their Sudanese refugees.
 

queenrayan

Member
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
49
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
it seems like australians dont want anyone other than themselves to live in australia. i find this very disturbing since they were not the first people on this land. did they have to integrate into Aboriginal culture? i dont think so. so why do anglo saxon australians want everyone to abide by their rules and follow "thier way of life" if they couldnt integrate into Aboriginal culture.

i say bring on multiculturalism and let people live the way they wish while abiding some laws in the country. you cant stop someone from entering a country because of their race,religion or culture because they are entitled to be here as much as the anglo saxons who make australia "their" country.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
Er, quite obviously multiculturalism is not working hence the new restrictions?
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
70% was a huge number. I would have thought that the Pacific and Middle-East would have accounted for a much greater proportion.
From my own experience, Canberra has a few Sudanese that certainly stand out (very tall, very thin and very dark). I always thought there was something very sad about them, and can believe that intergration into an educated, care-free, peaceful, white community would be very difficult given their pasts.
But there are always worthy refugee applicants around the world and we can only take so many. Looks like Hanson's new battle against the AIDS riddled Africans has almost been won.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
I hope the reason doesn't get lost in debate though. It's not because we're letting in too many foreigners, it's because theyre having trouble integrating and assimilating and until that problem is addressed it seems futile to increase the numbers of refugees deemed to be problematic.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
katie_tully said:
I hope the reason doesn't get lost in debate though. It's not because we're letting in too many foreigners, it's because theyre having trouble integrating and assimilating and until that problem is addressed it seems futile to increase the numbers of refugees deemed to be problematic.
I think the rules are slightly different when youre dealing with refugees though - as opposed to the common immigrant. 'Fitting in' should run a close second to the humanitarian concerns.
I dont particularly mind this decision because there are always genuine refugees about, and if there's no difference between a middle-eastern or African application, other than their ability to intergrate/contribute to Australian society, then that's tough but fair enough.
 

williams180

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
219
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
queenrayan said:
it seems like australians dont want anyone other than themselves to live in australia. i find this very disturbing since they were not the first people on this land. did they have to integrate into Aboriginal culture? i dont think so. so why do anglo saxon australians want everyone to abide by their rules and follow "thier way of life" if they couldnt integrate into Aboriginal culture.

i say bring on multiculturalism and let people live the way they wish while abiding some laws in the country. you cant stop someone from entering a country because of their race,religion or culture because they are entitled to be here as much as the anglo saxons who make australia "their" country.
youre kidding. You damn sure can stop people coming into the country and we should. You are saying they have just as much right to come her as people who were born here and have lived their entire lives as australians and have that culture in their blood. That is just open anarchism there.What happened to holding traditional conservative views.
 

campbellleo

Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
60
Location
Idyllic Ballina: It's enough to make you rather si
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Yeah - is it just me, or is 'integrate' starting to mean the same as 'assimilate' to politicians? I mean, if they are here, and alive, it is better than being over there, and persecuted or worse. Who the fuck cares if they don't join Lions and don't speak English?

Edit - missed the above post, so here's my reply:
Apart from your post not making sense in a variety of ways - "have that culture in their blood"? - it shows an arrogance, and frankly, a selfishness, that a Republican would be proud of. Number one: what is it about being fortunate enough to be born here that automatically makes us able to deny others the chance of a better life? Number two: employing compassion by letting people join a free community is certainly not "open anarchism [sic]" - in fact, I would say just the opposite. What is more civilised than giving others a chance for life? I can see something very tribal and anarchist about letting people suffer and die just so you don't have to cope with something disturbing your bubble.

Number three: you're a moron.
 
Last edited:
K

katie_tully

Guest
Who the fuck cares if they don't join Lions and don't speak English?
I don't quite think that is the problem, however if you're living in a predominantly English speaking country I think it should be expected that you learn a basic level of English. It'd be like going to Sudan and not being able to speak Arabic. Life would be difficult.

But as I said, the language barrier is the least problematic issue.
 

iamsickofyear12

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,960
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Iron said:
I think the rules are slightly different when youre dealing with refugees though - as opposed to the common immigrant. 'Fitting in' should run a close second to the humanitarian concerns.
I don't think its our responsibility to help out refugees no matter how genuine they may be. If they are incapable of integrating then they shouldn't be allowed in. If somehow it was making a difference then I might have a different opinion but there are so many genuine refugees around no how many we let in there will always be more.

campbellleo said:
I mean, if they are here, and alive, it is better than being over there, and persecuted or worse. Who the fuck cares if they don't join Lions and don't speak English?
We aren't some kind of charity. There will always be people being persecuted and killed no matter how many we let in.

It makes a big difference if they can't speak English. You should have to speak at least a little English to live here.
 

campbellleo

Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
60
Location
Idyllic Ballina: It's enough to make you rather si
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
iamsickofyear12 said:
We aren't some kind of charity. There will always be people being persecuted and killed no matter how many we let in.
Excuse me? Ex-scuuuuuse me? Do you have any sort of heart/brain?

No, wait - you're right. Also: let's stop saving people who call 000 because they are about to be murdered. Heck, there'll always be someone killing someone - why bother? It's not like we are some kind of charity.

Plus, 'it's not our responsibility'? Right, because those non-existent alien beings are going to save them. If you are a human, than it is your responsibility, to some extent, to do something about people who are being senselessly murdered. Or else we may as well be back in the forest and start swinging on trees. It is called compassion. It is called morality.

People like you just make me wonder - what if the situation was reversed? What if it was you that just had your family murdered in front of your eyes? Your little sister, hacked with a machete, your mum raped. Can you even imagine that? Now imagine they could have been saved, but some arrogant ignorant navel-gazing self-obsessed righteous PRICK said "Hey, we're not a charity!"

Sorry for the language. Morons make me unhappy :/
 

iamsickofyear12

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,960
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
campbellleo said:
Do you have any sort of heart/brain?

No, wait - you're right. Also: let's stop saving people who call 000 because they are about to be murdered. Heck, there'll always be someone killing someone - why bother? It's not like we are some kind of charity.

Plus, 'it's not our responsibility'? Right, because those non-existent alien beings are going to save them. If you are a human, than it is your responsibility, to some extent, to do something about people who are being senselessly murdered. Or else we may as well be back in the forest and start swinging on trees. It is called compassion. It is called morality.
No, I don't have a heart.

000 is not the same thing.

Who decided that "we are human therefore it is our responsibility to save all other humans." That is bullshit. We don't have that responsibility.

Morality should not come above self preservation.
 

campbellleo

Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
60
Location
Idyllic Ballina: It's enough to make you rather si
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
iamsickofyear12 said:
No, I don't have a heart.
Not something to be proud of.

iamsickofyear12 said:
000 is not the same thing.
Ah, and your well constructed, comprehensive argument supports this claim beautifully.

iamsickofyear12 said:
Who decided that "we are human therefore it is our responsibility to save all other humans." That is bullshit. We don't have that responsibility.
Fuck me, are you kidding? There is just so much wrong with this statement that it makes my head spin. To begin with, I said to some extent, not save all people. Next, I... look, I can't go on with this line of thought. It is not worth it. If you actually believe that you can live with yourself after saying something so morally reprehensible, then whatever. I just hope you meet someone like yourself in the future, and that person has a chance to save you by lifting his finger, and they don't. Because it wasn't his responsibility, was it?

iamsickofyear12 said:
Morality should not come above self preservation.
I am not talking about self-preservation, moron! Refugees aren't going to come here to fucking kill you (although, I probably wouldn't discourage this at this point). They want to live, like anyone else. Most will even work, so instead of being a burden, will be the opposite, paying taxes, supporting our society. And the ones that don't? You are seriously playing what would probably be the equivalent of a couple of cents of your money against the LIFE of a HUMAN BEING?

Ack.
 

iamsickofyear12

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,960
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
campbellleo said:
Not something to be proud of.
Maybe not.

campbellleo said:
Fuck me, are you kidding? There is just so much wrong with this statement that it makes my head spin. To begin with, I said to some extent, not save all people. Next, I... look, I can't go on with this line of thought. It is not worth it. If you actually believe that you can live with yourself after saying something so morally reprehensible, then whatever. I just hope you meet someone like yourself in the future, and that person has a chance to save you by lifting his finger, and they don't. Because it wasn't his responsibility, was it?
If you think you have a responsibility to save people then that is fine but you don't get to decide morals for everyone else.

campbellleo said:
Refugees aren't going to come here to fucking kill you (although, I probably wouldn't discourage this at this point). They want to live, like anyone else. Most will even work, so instead of being a burden, will be the opposite, paying taxes, supporting our society. And the ones that don't? You are seriously playing what would probably be the equivalent of a couple of cents of your money against the LIFE of a HUMAN BEING?
No, but if we let too many in that have no interest in integrating and don't speak English it is going to screw things up. It is not about my couple cents in taxes that are going to go to helping these people, its the impact it would have on society of them being here... and we have no business focusing valuable resources on helping other people when we have enough problems of our own.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
It stops being our responsibility when bringing them into Australia creates more problems for us and them. It's unfortunate what is happening in other countries, but it shouldn't be our burden to 'save' them and then try and integrate them into our system. It's obviously not working - they're not even integrating within their own Sudanese communities in Australia. So until the problem is fixed, it makes sense to halt refugee numbers from certain areas.

100,000+ homeless Australians each night. Housing affordability crisis. Why don't we focus on fixing our own shit before we try and save the rest of the world?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

samuel slack

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
387
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
campbellleo said:
I am not talking about self-preservation, moron! Refugees aren't going to come here to fucking kill you (although, I probably wouldn't discourage this at this point).
Hahah. Thats gold.

Anyways. I'm just gonna jump into this one. What they're talking about here is reducing the numbers of African refugees getting places, and giving more to people from syria, the middle east etc. I dont even get what you're becoming involved in this argument for iamsickofyr12... the last thread i posted in with you was full of your views about the importance of evicting muslims from Australia. So now you'd like to change your views?? Anyways a little off topic there. Back to the point. Why shouldn't we bring African refugees to Australia. If they're willing to work they should be given a chance. What I think should be done is that they should be sent to many smaller communities (like Tamworth) and attempts should be made to help them integrate. I read somewhere that the Sudanese refugees in Tamworth have actually integrated quite well into the community now. Even if they don't fully integrate into Australian society, what gives us the right to deny people the right to live without being persecuted. Oh... btw are they referring to refugees from the middle east, or will it just be immigrants?
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
The Sudanese ran amok in Tamworth, actually. What do you plan for them to do in the country? There is nothing out here. The infrastructure is shit, there arent many jobs, those jobs that exist are for skilled workers. The majority of African refugees would not be skilled and 60% of rural residents are on welfare. Do you propose welfare for them too?

It's a stop to African 'refugee's, not immigrants. And it's only African refugees, not all refugees. They've shown they cannot integrate within our society, theyve shown they can't even integrate within their own communities in Australia. The plan is to find a solution before we let more of them in.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 5)

Top