The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Integration is a two way street > Comments

Integration is a two way street : Comments

By Andrew Hewett, published 23/10/2007

It’s time to speak out for an Australian refugee policy which is non-discriminatory and based on the actual humanitarian needs of those resettlling in this country

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
"The indigenous culture and tribal life would never have survived to this day......"

I KNOW what he meant,dnicholson. (How come you are still getting away with two identities?)

It is utter arrogance to suggest the above.

As I said. RUBBISH!
Posted by Ginx, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 6:36:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If all people who are not happy in their own country change countries and everybody does the same, where do you stop? How far do you go? Are countries allowed to ever stop and who decides when and if a line is drawn?

It seems to me that attention needs to be paid on how to help these people in their own Countries as we cannot take them all. At the end of the day the majority of people prefer to be with their own with access to others.

That is not racism. Preference should be a freedom of choice.
Posted by Jolanda, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 7:46:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jolanda: "If all people who are not happy in their own country change countries and everybody does the same, where do you stop? "

In case you hadn't actually read the article, it's about refugees.

"According to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is a 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 their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country.

The concept of a refugee was expanded by the Conventions’ 1967 Protocol and by regional conventions in Africa and Latin America to include persons who had fled war or other violence in their home country. A person who is seeking to be recognized as a refugee is an asylum seeker."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee

A little more serious than not being "happy in their own country", don't you think?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 8:39:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Ginx, I’m sorry, but “RUBBISH” right back at ya.

If it wasn't the Brits it would have been someone else on some other colonisation mission, which I think is a pretty safe bet. (To pinch a few words off dnicholson).

And the French, Dutch, Portuguese or Spanish, or perhaps the Indonesians or Chinese, would not have been any nicer to the indigenes. That’s not supposed to be any sort of justification for the invasion, murder and displacement undertaken by the British. It is simply a statement of opinion, and almost certainly fact.

.
Boazy, I agree! Immigrants (other than the refugee category) should be selected in a discriminatory manner, on reasonable grounds, based partly on the premise that; “Unsound resettlement policies DENY the human rights of existing people to a harmonious, civil society.”

But it should be different for refugees. I agree with Andrew Hewett that Australian refugee policy should be “non-discriminatory and firmly based on the actual humanitarian needs”.

We should perhaps increase our refugee intake to about double the current rate. And we should most definitely reduce overall immigration down to at least net zero. This would mean that refugees would make up the bulk of our immigration intake (up to 28 000 out of a total of 30 to 32 000 per annum).

We should also greatly boost our national input into refugee, poverty and sustainability issues around the world.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 23 October 2007 10:48:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well stated Andrew.

With over twenty million refugees worldwide and as many again internally displaced, Australia has to shoulder its fair share in assisting with their resettlement. And once here, we need to ensure refugees receive plenty of government and community support so they can make the adjustment to a different way of life.

There are many areas of need in the world, but I agree with you that now is not the time to be abandoning Africa.

We are a comparatively wealthy country, in fact we've never had it so good if you believe Howard and Costello, and we should be able to accommodate at least 20 000 refugees a year and as well allow for family reunion places on top of that.

I agree with Ludwig that refugee resettlement should comprise the bulk of our migration program. Our current rate of 160 000 immigrants is far too high. In particular we should end the practice of poaching skilled migrants from countries who can ill afford the brain drain. Many refugees have professional qualifications and trades skills that can easily be upgraded to Australian standards.

We should not condemn people to seventeen years in squalid and overcrowded refugee camps when it is within our capacity to help.
Posted by Bronwyn, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 12:02:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz, your posts speak for themselves. You are determined to maintain your unearned status in this country at all costs, and against all comers.

You have benefitted from the colonization, and the appropriation of this land that created your prosperity, and are unprepared to share it.

You are now a perfect example of the dog in the manger.

But what interests me most is how you, at a personal level, reconcile your self-proclaimed Christianity with this xenophobic, misanthropic standpoint.

It seems to me to be a major contradiction. How do you do it?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 6:12:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy