No more Africans (4 Viewers)

[iamsickofyear12]

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.

No, I am not changing my views. I am only arguing that we don't have a responsibility to save African refugees by allowing them all to come here. I'm not agreeing with the article. I still don't think muslim immigration is a good thing.

We aren't denying people the right to live without being persecuted by not allowing them to come here, we are just not helping the situation.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

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.

racist!

 

[campbellleo]

It stops being our responsibility when bringing them into Australia creates more problems for us and them.

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?

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.

I can't believe you people. I honestly am having trouble figuring out if you are being sincere, or just making shit up to get me all indignant.

Number one, we have MORE than enough money to fix our own problems - everyone knows people are only homeless in Australia because of social, not economic strife (see: getting the dole). Therefore, the incredibly large burden on us poor, (read: rich) and troubled (read: bored enough to make a show like Australian Idol viable) Australians of having to tolerate different people and possibly spending an insignificant amount on people OTHER than ourselves TO SAVE THEIR LIVES is justified.

Number two, even if this wasn't the case, the fact is that Australia is vastly superior to any number of places that these people are fleeing from. I mean, can someone actually name one REAL problem associated with humanitarian immigration that is even comparable to the shit these people have been through? Answer: no; reason: there isn't one. The only, ONLY reason that they aren't here is becasue they cost us more money to save than to leave alone, and there is too many selfish, arrogant, money-grubbing twats like you in this country.

 

[Azamakumar]

Whether or not we have enough money does not change the fact that problems still do exist.

 

[katie_tully]

You're an idiot. The cost of 'saving' refugee's is irrelevant.

Stop going off on a tangent, you have no argument against the decision. Telling us we have no heart, are racist and that it's our responsibility and their right to come to Australia isn't an argument. It's bleeding heart bullshit and your bleeding heart bullshit doesn't put food on the table.

The problem is THEY ARE HAVING ISSUES INTEGRATING WITHIN AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITIES AND THEIR OWN CULTURAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN AUSTRALIA. Therefore until the issues are addressed and fixed IT IS NONSENSICAL TO CONTINUE TO BRING THEM IN AND DUMP THEM IN LESS THAN IDEAL SITUATIONS.

 

[campbellleo]

you fucking stupid, politically correct, left wing do-gooder.

Thankyou for your valid contribution to this argument. Clearly, I am the stupid one.

You're an idiot. The cost of 'saving' refugee's is irrelevant.

Stop going off on a tangent, you have no argument against the decision. Telling us we have no heart, are racist and that it's our responsibility and their right to come to Australia isn't an argument. It's bleeding heart bullshit and your bleeding heart bullshit doesn't put food on the table.

The problem is THEY ARE HAVING ISSUES INTEGRATING WITHIN AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITIES AND THEIR OWN CULTURAL COMMUNITIES WITHIN AUSTRALIA. Therefore until the issues are addressed and fixed IT IS NONSENSICAL TO CONTINUE TO BRING THEM IN AND DUMP THEM IN LESS THAN IDEAL SITUATIONS.

Actually, iamsickofyear12 is the one who took us off topic:

I don't think its our responsibility to help out refugees no matter how genuine they may be.

And it was such bullshit I had to react.

Secondly, mounting an argument FOR broadening of immigration clearly IS relevant to this topic, which is about (lo and behold) immigration quotas.

Thirdly, arguing against the pitiful amount of humanitarian refugees we 'accept' is arguing against the decision. Obviously.

Fourthly, I am not sure what point you are trying to put across by "bleeding heart bullshit doesn't put food on the table." The argument is whether there are things that are more important to us than the miniscule economic cost of accomadating refugees.

Fifthly, I would like you to tell somebody who is about to have their genitalia mutilated that we can't have them because they may get be in 'less than ideal situations'. Face it: you can't argue that it isn't better for them to be here, so stop pretending you are something other than the selfish prick you are.

I see you didn't take up my challenge to name any real 'integration issues' they are facing.

 

[jb_nc]

autsralia rules!!!

proud to be white!!

 

[Azamakumar]

Fourthly, I am not sure what point you are trying to put across by "bleeding heart bullshit doesn't put food on the table." The argument is whether there are things that are more important to us than the miniscule economic cost of accomadating refugees.

If you could read you'd know it was about them not fitting into society, a social problem, not an economic one. Which is also why it discriminates against people of a certain denomination, rather than all refugees in particular.


I really don't know why the fuck I came back to NCAP.

 

[jb_nc]

If you could read you'd know it was about them not fitting into society, a social problem, not an economic one.


I really don't know why the fuck I came back to NCAP.

deport all non white people

you are deported from this thread

 

[katie_tully]

Secondly, mounting an argument FOR broadening of immigration clearly IS relevant to this topic, which is about (lo and behold) immigration quotas.

It's about refugee quotas. Not immigration quotas. They're not banning African immigrants, they're putting a hold on African refugees because African refugees seem to be less capable than say Middle Eastern refugees at integrating into society.

Thirdly, arguing against the pitiful amount of humanitarian refugees we 'accept' is arguing against the decision. Obviously

Well no, it means that if we're going to increase the quota, we're going to have to increase the number of refugees we accept from countries other than Africa. Who was arguing against the amount of humanitarian refugees we accept?

The argument is whether there are things that are more important to us than the miniscule economic cost of accomadating refugees.

There are things more important. This isn't the argument though, this is your argument. You seem hell bent on this being an economic issue. It isn't. Never was it said that the cost of 'saving' them is too much, unless yr12 said it, in which case I never read his posts anyway.

Fifthly, I would like you to tell somebody who is about to have their genitalia mutilated that we can't have them because they may get be in 'less than ideal situations'. Face it: you can't argue that it isn't better for them to be here, so stop pretending you are something other than the selfish prick you are.

So I will change the argument. I can argue that it is better for Australia for them not to be here until the integration issue is addressed. Personally I don't give two thoughts about what happens overseas. It's not my problem. I don't feel obliged to go on a rescue mission and save everybody.
You ask us what would happen if we were in that position. We're not and quite probably never will be, therefore i don't feel the need to try.

I see you didn't take up my challenge to name any real 'integration issues' they are facing.

Because I didn't jump to it ASAP? I'll take up your challenge when I have the time to sit down and compile a decent argument. That doesn't translate to me as not having one, it means I'd rather be prepared

 

[samuel slack]

I meant will they be accepting refugees from the Middle East, or immigrants. Because if they decide to replace African refugees with Middle Eastern immigrant then I will be a little bit stunned.

 

[campbellleo]

If you could read you'd know it was about them not fitting into society, a social problem, not an economic one. Which is also why it discriminates against people of a certain denomination, rather than all refugees in particular.

I was talking about the argument that katie_tully was refuting with her point. I get the point of the article, people, but obviously we have broadened the focus of our argument a long time ago...

 

[jb_nc]

this just in: australia is home to the world's entire population of slackjawed racist convicts

 

[Azamakumar]

I was talking about the argument that katie_tully was refuting with her point. I get the point of the article, people, but obviously we have broadened the focus of our argument a long time ago...

You were the one that explicitly mentioned that we can afford it. We can. That is not the problem at hand.

The problem is their inability to become part of a society as a direct result of what has happened to them before they sought refuge.

 

[jimmayyy]

is it just me or are some people really fucking stupid;

"It is simply inhumane for the Australian Government to close the door on these people based on perceptions that some African refugees are not integrating into the Australian community," he said.

?

all the minister is doing is following the rules set out. if we have filled our quota, we've filled out quota, get over it. it's great we are taking refugees at all.

of course, in the socialist, classless, raceless utopia some posters on BOS seem to think is possible, this wouldn't be a problem.

 

[campbellleo]

Also sick ep of heroes last night, "GET OUT OF MY HEAD", amirite?

And I get in trouble for going off-topic

You were the one that explicitly mentioned that we can afford it. We can. That is not the problem at hand.

The problem is their inability to become part of a society as a direct result of what has happened to them before they sought refuge.

I don't believe that is the problem at all. I believe the problem is people who THINK that is MORE of a problem than the circumstances that they are escaping.

 

[Generator]

Number one, we have MORE than enough money to fix our own problems - everyone knows people are only homeless in Australia because of social, not economic strife (see: getting the dole). Therefore, the incredibly large burden on us poor, (read: rich) and troubled (read: bored enough to make a show like Australian Idol viable) Australians of having to tolerate different people and possibly spending an insignificant amount on people OTHER than ourselves TO SAVE THEIR LIVES is justified.

Actually, those in the know know that the issue of homelessness is far from being as simplistic as you suggest -

Homelessness has been a serious and growing problem in Australia for many years, with devastating consequences for those affected by it. Evidence suggests that the demand on existing services is growing, while emerging trends in the composition of the homeless population are also demanding new and innovative responses.

The face of homelessness has changed over time. Historically, homeless services have been provided mainly for men who are reaching or have reached the end of their working life.

However, in the last 20 years there has been a significant change in the factors influencing homelessness and the profile of homeless people seeking assistance. These include:

• changes to family formation, including increased family breakdowns;
• the deinstitutionalisation of people with psychiatric illness and physical and intellectual disabilities;
• an increase in the incidence of women and their children fleeing domestic violence;
• a decrease in rooming-house and other low cost accommodation options;
• significant shifts in patterns of substance abuse and the availability of illicit drugs; and
• changes to the structure and nature of the labour market that have led to fewer jobs for low skilled people.

As a result there are increasing numbers of single women, families and young people joining single adult males in homelessness. Indigenous Australians are over-represented in the homeless population.

No longer is the homeless population predominantly composed of those at the end of their working lives, but increasingly the population includes people in their teens, twenties and thirties.

People affected by homelessness may have a range of other problems, including unemployment, substance abuse and mental health problems. Many have experienced physical, sexual or psychological abuse.

Source: National Homelessness Strategy - A Discussion Paper (page 4).

---

As for the issue at hand, for the Government to accept one refugee they have to deny another, so, the size of the intake aside, ultimately I don't see a problem with the humanitarian programme shifting its focus to other areas of global concern. That said, there was no need for the Minister to make such a dramatic announcement regarding the shift, and that such an announcement was made raises yet another set of questions regarding the commitment of our current federal government to multiculturalism and to the provision of effective migrant and refugee services.

---

The following links provide some useful information -

2007-08 Migration Programme ; and
Migration programme planning levels.

It's strange that despite the rhetoric and the treatment of 'illegal' refugees, the Government's migration programme at large is hardly as Eurocentric as many would believe. Populism at it's best/worst, I guess.

 

[Azamakumar]

I don't believe that is the problem at all. I believe the problem is people who THINK that is MORE of a problem than the circumstances that they are escaping.

So you can go to sleep at night so long as we take them in under our wing, even if it means they don't fit in and subsequently commit suicide.

As sad as it is they currently fit in better where they are now. The situation effectively worsens once they come here, even without the oppression.

 

[katie_tully]

I don't believe that is the problem at all. I believe the problem is people who THINK that is MORE of a problem than the circumstances that they are escaping.

Fantastic. How many do you propose we let in? All of them? If not, where do you propose we draw the line?

Nobody is making their circumstances trivial.

 

[absolutlaura]

I can't believe you people. I honestly am having trouble figuring out if you are being sincere, or just making shit up to get me all indignant.

Number one, we have MORE than enough money to fix our own problems - everyone knows people are only homeless in Australia because of social, not economic strife (see: getting the dole). Therefore, the incredibly large burden on us poor, (read: rich) and troubled (read: bored enough to make a show like Australian Idol viable) Australians of having to tolerate different people and possibly spending an insignificant amount on people OTHER than ourselves TO SAVE THEIR LIVES is justified.

Number two, even if this wasn't the case, the fact is that Australia is vastly superior to any number of places that these people are fleeing from. I mean, can someone actually name one REAL problem associated with humanitarian immigration that is even comparable to the shit these people have been through? Answer: no; reason: there isn't one. The only, ONLY reason that they aren't here is becasue they cost us more money to save than to leave alone, and there is too many selfish, arrogant, money-grubbing twats like you in this country.

Agreed. In fact Ive agreed with everything youve said so far.. weird.. i keep finding myself gasping indignantly at the ignorance of it all + being inspired to contribute.. only to find that you've already said what i was going to say..
Fight the good fight.

Is it possible that the inability of the Sudanese refugees to 'intergrate' - which seems increasingly to mean 'assimilate' according to our government, may actually be the result of the fact that they have suffered heinous atrocities at the hands of their own government.. raping of children, decapitation, severed limbs etc + they are in need of a competent support system after they arrive here.. ie councelling... maybe we're the ones who've failed here.

However, all of this is really irrelevant.. big picture is lives are saved. lives are more important than the comfort level of the ignorant conservatives.