getting fed up with all the blame gaming

[Frizzle]

What I also find hilarious is some of the people making these judgements have not even left the shores of Australia.

Could someone please create a poll on that as I would be most interested to know how many Somersofters have not travelled overseas?
One of my rewards from property investment is to enjoy travelling to new places and I would imagine many people would share that aspiration.
Frizzle

 

[BayView]

Melbournites who complain about our hot weather - move to Hobart you idiots.

Young people who complain about how expensive property is.

Penioners who complain about being on the pension.

Just a few for ya's.

 

[Perp]

As my ancestors immigrated in the 1840s and I'm ex-military, I'm delighted to be permitted to venture an opinion.

I find it breathtaking just how much sense of entitlement some people seem to have because they were lucky enough to be born in the first world. It seems that many people seem to think that they're entitled to a better quality of life because of an accident of birth!

Some suggest that people born in a war zone should just stay and fix the war (or poor economy, or corruption, or whatever ails their homeland). Why, by being born in a certain location, does one person acquire an obligation to fix enormous problems not of their own making (in effect, requiring everybody to be a Mandela ), whilst the rest of us are given permission to ignore these problems and continue with our privileged existence, with no requirement for exhibiting the courage of a Mandela?

If the Bondi riots - for example - had not been contained but had instead degenerated into prolonged violent conflict, would we have said to all the non-combatant residents caught up within the boundaries of Bondi: "no, sorry, you're not allowed to leave and come to the safer suburbs; you should stay and see if you can stop them fighting!"

And I know somebody's going to say that the Bondi riots were a result of ethnic tension, and somehow argue that this is a justification for being anti-immigration. Most of the the conflict in the world is due to conflict between tribes, ethnic groups, and religious adherents. The answer is not to say that each country should consist of people from only one group. Such divisions will always exist; a more logical solution is instead to eliminate beliefs that membership of one group makes you inherently superior to members of another group. We need far more compassion and mixing of groups, not less.

National boundaries hold no special ethical significance. They are administrative boundaries, not intended to be the limits of our compassion and concern for other human beings.

I just know somebody will suggest that I'm saying that there should be no national boundaries and no limits on immigration, etc. So I'll answer that in anticipation. I don't think that will happen, nor do I think it would be desirable, certainly if it happened suddenly. But I do recognise that there's no logical ethical argument against unfettered immigration; it's an artificial barrier that's been created - only very recently in historical terms - which has become so entrenched that it's likely to endure for some time yet. But the very least that those of us who benefit from these artificial barriers should do, IMHO, is recognise that they are artificial and that we're very privileged solely by accident of birth, not inherently better quality or more valuable human beings than those who were born within other boundaries.

Compassion for those who are less fortunate, without accompanying action, is of pretty limited value. Not even having compassion is incomprehensible to me.

 

[sash]

As perspective on Economic Refugees.....interesting view....

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ime-to-seek-a-better-life-20101222-195hn.html

Good post Perp......very sound arguments....and from someone who actually served in the Armed forces.

 

[dan c]

Just why are they being interrogated?
Do they refuse to follow the rules of their country?
When a country won't look after their own, why should another country.
Where are they getting the money to "bribe" with. Nothing legal, I bet.

I have said nothing racist.
I just think people should be following the rules. After all, we are a democracy...as someone else pointed out earlier.

No one here has said there shouldn't be immigration.
They just said, they need to come in the front door, like the rest.

Maybe you should find a refugee and ask them your questions. It may help you to understand why they do what they do to get to Australia.

 

[Perp]

sash, the quote on the work ethic of many immigrants in that article reminded me of this quote from The Punch a few weeks ago which tickled my fancy, about the Aussie "she'll be right" attitude:

"on the rare occasions that she is right it’s only because someone more industrious – say a Scandanavian [sic] for example – has gotten off their **** and done something"

 

[dan c]

Canadians and Australians both went to war over this.
As it should have been.
I'm not disputing any of that.

Seems some countries even took in those Nazi killers, if I remember correctly, and hid them.

That isn't the point.
The point was some people got their tail feathers in a ruffle over the term "illegal immigrants". They just don't see the difference between doing something legally or sliding in the back door. All for themselves, and forget about the others.The resources Australia puts out for detention centers etc., could be better utilised in their owncountry, looking after "legal" people.

That wasn't your point at all.

Your point was that people fleeing persecution should 'follow rules' or 'change their country'. Should the Jews who fled Nazi Germany sought out refugee camps? Should they have challenged Hitler to change his ways? Or should they have just done anything to protect their families?

What would you have done?

 

[Macca]

Thanks to Aaron and Sash for taking the time to answer my question. I had read in the newspaper that these people needed "papers" to get into Indonesia and always wondered why they flew there instead of here.

Jaycee and Gordon, it is answers like yours that cause people to be unable to discuss this in a rational way.

I can see by this thread that it is a very emotional topic but flaming people who want to start at the start and build an opinion is not helpful.

Is the only alternative to allow everyone to come to Australia, I am not aware of any country that does that. If we don't or can't allow that then where and how do we "draw a line" somewhere ?

 

[kathryn d]

That wasn't your point at all.

Your point was that people fleeing persecution should 'follow rules' or 'change their country'. Should the Jews who fled Nazi Germany sought out refugee camps? Should they have challenged Hitler to change his ways? Or should they have just done anything to protect their families?

What would you have done?

No, my point was these "illegals" were not following proper procedure.
How do you know these particular boat people are not the men and their families that are persecuting the very people you want to save?
They just decided it was time to leave the country.
Or is that ok too?
I don't need to ask anyone refugee why they left their country. It is irrelevant.Our governments do that on our behalf.

Don't be trying to make me out to be a Nazi sympathizer, cause I'm not.
If sash and jaycee had their way, Australia's borders would be opened up to everyone.

 

[dan c]

No, my point was these "illegals" were not following proper procedure.
How do you know these particular boat people are not the men and their families that are persecuting the very people you want to save?
They just decided it was time to leave the country.
Or is that ok too?
I don't need to ask anyone refugee why they left their country. It is irrelevant.Our governments do that on our behalf.

Don't be trying to make me out to be a Nazi sympathizer, cause I'm not.
If sash and jaycee had their way, Australia's borders would be opened up to everyone.

Firstly, I don't think you're a Nazi sympathiser. I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote.

My point was, you have all these questions, why not ask a refugee as to why they left. It would answer some of your questions.

You answered your own question. I believe they 'didn't just decide to leave their country' because, as you said, 'the government do (the checks) on our behalf. If they weren't genuine refugees, they would have been sent home, as about 10% of asylum seekers have been.

The definition of refugee from the 1951 convention is:

Any person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.

So by that very definition and convention, of which Australia is a signatory, the people admitted here as refugees are not just here for a holiday. And as you say, the government do the checks for us. So what's your problem?

 

[Perp]

I believe you when you say you're not a Nazi sympathiser, but how do you reconcile that with your questions?

Just why are they being interrogated?
Do they refuse to follow the rules of their country?
When a country won't look after their own, why should another country.

Why were the Jews interrogated by the Nazis? How could the Jews have "adhered to the rules", when your Jewishness was determined by ancestry, not even converting would necessarily save you? Should we have refused to look after German Jews because Germany wouldn't look after them?

I just think people should be following the rules.

Which rules do you think they are breaking?

Why don't those who come by boat simply apply for a visa and fly in.

As Aaron said, for many asylum seekers, there is nowhere to apply for a visa in their home country. In many other countries, the local authorities monitor people visiting embassies and just visiting the embassy is sufficient to attract persecution.

It is not an offence to arrive in Australia, with or without papers, by plane or boat, with or without prior permission, and seek asylum.

There is no requirement to seek asylum in the first country of arrival. I can understand why it may be viewed as inconsistent to come to such an appealing country as Australia, but if you're risking your life and leaving everything you've ever known behind anyway, it's obvious that the anticipated quality of life in your new home would be a factor in selecting your destination. Just as I imagine that most Brisbanites - if forced to flee Australia - would probably head for Auckland (1400km) in preference to Port Moresby (1300km).

If sash and jaycee had their way, Australia's borders would be opened up to everyone.

I didn't see them say any such thing, but even if they did, I'd be interested to hear an ethical argument opposing such a move. The only argument that I'm aware of is "we want to artificially maintain our wealth". Whilst I admit that I also want that, I recognise it as reflecting my own self-interest, not as a position occupying some moral high ground.

 

[jaycee]

I believe you when you say you're not a Nazi sympathiser, but how do you reconcile that with your questions?

Why were the Jews interrogated by the Nazis? How could the Jews have "adhered to the rules", when your Jewishness was determined by ancestry, not even converting would necessarily save you? Should we have refused to look after German Jews because Germany wouldn't look after them?

Which rules do you think they are breaking?

As Aaron said, for many asylum seekers, there is nowhere to apply for a visa in their home country. In many other countries, the local authorities monitor people visiting embassies and just visiting the embassy is sufficient to attract persecution.

It is not an offence to arrive in Australia, with or without papers, by plane or boat, with or without prior permission, and seek asylum.

There is no requirement to seek asylum in the first country of arrival. I can understand why it may be viewed as inconsistent to come to such an appealing country as Australia, but if you're risking your life and leaving everything you've ever known behind anyway, it's obvious that the anticipated quality of life in your new home would be a factor in selecting your destination. Just as I imagine that most Brisbanites - if forced to flee Australia - would probably head for Auckland (1400km) in preference to Port Moresby (1300km).Exactly, I really do beleive it is THAT simple. But people have twisted into some sort of sinister lot against our freedom and to steql our money or soemthing

I didn't see them say any such thing, but even if they did, I'd be interested to hear an ethical argument opposing such a move. The only argument that I'm aware of is "we want to artificially maintain our wealth". Whilst I admit that I also want that, I recognise it as reflecting my own self-interest, not as a position occupying some moral high ground.

Correct, I didnt suggest that and if I did, I wolda gree that it would be inn mh popinion, not a position occupying any morally higher ground