Dear socratease and King Hazza,

The following website may give you another perspective:

http://australiansall.com.au/archive/post/australia-s-dangerous-fantasy/

Thankyou socratease and although I still believe that character tests are the fairest method, I will still have to think about your point too.

Sigh Grim, I just DID give you a point of how people benefit from violating others' rights, but how about this example example: I am a property developer. It's my rights- construction rights, vs residents rights of a comfortable, peaceful safe environment. The more rights a construction company have- say, to build a giant electricity wire pylon in someone's neighborhood, while cutting costs making it safe, is imposing on those who live there who don't want the pylon around and concerned about the safety hazards and reduced housing value, among issues of visuals and access to sunlight.

Anyway, I also detect you are confusing civil rights of innocent-till-proven-guilty (relating to being forced to pay fines or go to prison) with rights of entry of premises- which you will find will consistently reflect no need to PROVE guilt, but mere suspicion of trouble is enough for the owner to legally bar me from entry or expel me/call the cops if I try to force entry anyway- also there is a requirement I show my ID- in which I may choose to either turn away, or wait on the side till they clear me through. A house they don't even have to open the door for me -so there is much more consistency in matching immigration to legal grounds to enter premises than to trying to match it to crime and punishment.
So long as the people detained are free to demand to be sent back and placed on the transport to take them back home, there is no relationship.

And you haven't exactly answered MY question either- of what DO you do with those who fail character tests?

Contra those who are trying to find ways to keep refugees out of Australia, the Greens are advocating pretty much what I proposed on Monday:

<< Time To Increase Humanitarian Intake, Not Cut It Back
06/04/2010 - 09:23

The Australian Greens have called on the Federal Government to commit to an increase of Australia's humanitarian intake in immigration in the face of the Opposition's anti-asylum-seeker rhetoric, according to Green Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

Senator Hanson-Young, Greens spokesperson on Immigration and Human Rights, said it was clear that the Opposition either was being ignorant or wilfully misleading about the motivations of asylum-seekers in Australia.

"The Opposition's talk about focusing immigration policy on skills and productivity is a polite way of saying that it wants Australia to ignore vulnerable asylum-seekers,'' Senator Hanson-Young said.

[...]

The Greens support an increase to Australia's humanitarian intake along with increased efforts to fulfil our obligations as a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. The Greens have also called for a national inquiry into Australia's population.

The Greens believe there is room to reduce the overall migration intake through cuts to skilled and business migration.

"We welcome the major parties' interest in a discussion on population, but blaming refugees for perceived population problems is disingenuous and does no one any good,'' Senator Hanson-Young said. >>

http://greens.org.au/node/5852

ozzie - while it's nice that you have a friend who came here as a refugee, how on earth does she know that 95% of current asylum seekers are "fakes"? Can she tell by seeing them on TV, or what?

I personally disagree with such a policy CJ.
But I find it disingenuous for the Greens to try to pander such policy towards the sustainability/infrastructure discourses- as it would be of obvious benefits for Australians lacking skilled employees in various sectors than to continue to leave them blank.

Also note (Grim) that this is a good example of what I was talking about the subjectivity of different morals- in this case, skilled and business immigrants are being judged as less entitled of getting Australian residency than refugees based on (our own perceptions) of need to leave their own countries (not necessarily reach ours though)- thus one discourse of morality applied to immigrants benefits one group at the expense of another.

CJ
Saying someone knows something is true and someone feels something is true are really totally different things. You have changed my wording to be very misleading. If you read my posting again you will find that I stated she FEELS 95% of these refugees are fakes. I never stated she KNEW this. In exactly the same way that you probabaly feel the majority are not fakes, you cannot prove this. She could be incorrect or you could be incorrect.
However she being a genuine refugee having gone through what she did has a far better understanding than both you or I, and she has told me many times that genuine refugees would not act in the way that these people do. That's her opinion, yours I understand is different. If you are going to disagree with me, please at least have the decency not to mislead by misquoting me.

How many times do I have to keep repeating myself. Every wave of immigrants have been subjected to some degree of racism by those who were here before them, but history shows that given time these prejudices wear away if and when the newly arrived migrants prove to be friendly and want nothing more than to be good Aussies who make good +ive contributions to the socio-political fabric of society. Some of these Muslim migrants not only want to reap the social and economic benefits of Australian life they demand that their sharia law supplant our democratically devised legal system.Now ehilst rank and file muslim may not subscribe to this intention their influential and brainwashing imams do and are having their own way. The worst of them has been Ben Brika but he is small fish really. There are many worse than him.
Take a look at the UK. They have publicly from the infamous Finsbury Park mosque have announced that they will dismantle the monarchy and overthrow the democratic system in UK. These ingrates all live off the taxpayers none of them are gainfully employed.They say they claim UK as part of the Third Caliphate.
None of the Viets, Chinese, Malays, Africans Italians Serbs Croats Indians and Sri Lankans have made any such invidious claims. That is what has been shaping our responses to the Muslims in our midst. And who is to blame for this development? And who can change all these developments?? The muuslims in our country.
We would like nothing more than to embrace the arrival of the Muslims if only they accepted us, our way of life and our outstretched hand of friendly overture. Lets hope it wont be long in coming.

socratease