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. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Integration as well needs to be taken seriously, particularly when it comes from political leaders and indiginous aboriginal people.

http://www.hydrogen.asn.au/The-Worm-Big-John-Howard.htm
Posted by Mrhydrogen, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 10:44:32 AM
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
I agree with previous posters that money needs to be spent on settlement services for refugees, and that it may even pay for itself in the long run. So why isn't this being done? The answer is that free market utopias like Australia are not exactly brimming with the milk of human kindness for their own disadvantaged citizens. Just think of the schizophrenics living on the streets and the pensioners forced to pull out their own rotting teeth with pliers. Now imagine the reaction if these people and their supporters see the refugees getting services that are denied to them.

Britain faced precisely this problem with its asylum seekers and attempted to use the Official Secrets Act to cover up. The government was signing a secret agreement with landlords for housing asylum seekers that required them to meet higher standards than for needy citizens. This agreement was leaked to the British National Party and put up on their website, where the party officials dared the British government to arrest them. It didn't do so, because of the likely embarrassment. Google "BNP" and "Combined Joint Tenancy Agreement".

Pericles, go to the Numbers USA site and you will find a section on the ethics of immigration. All of the world's great religions, including Christianity, teach that we have the greatest responsibility for those who are closest to us. There is actually a medieval Jewish maxim to the effect that you should help a poor relative before a poor stranger and help the poor of your own town before the poor of some other town.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 12:19:31 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
Divergence

I think the argument of helping your own first is a cop out; people use it so they can turn their back on strangers without feeling guilt. It shouldn't be an either or situation; as a wealthy and civilized society we can do both. We have a responsibility to help the underpriviledged no matter where they come from.

Once again we're seeing christianity wheeled out to justify another dubious policy position. The bible is nothing more than a book of old stories written by men with no greater claim to wisdom than any one of us. For every story or quote used to support one position there is always another to back up the opposing claim. Why did Christ allegedly tell the Good Samaritan tale if it wasn't to get across the message that it is right and proper to lend a hand to strangers?
Posted by Bronwyn, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 1:17:38 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
Dissagree with Andrew. The integration prospects of both immigrants and refugees has to be considered, along with health checks, when selections are made. It would be quite wrong for us to bring a whole heap of people here, from anywhere, knowing there is little chance of them integrating into our society and they will be very unhappy.

We should be looking for the best possible outcome for the refugees and that is to select those likely to integrate. Like most countries, Sudan has people of differing cultures. Some Sudanese have integrated well here and others not. If we select refugees that will integrate we not only get the best for them, we do the best for our own society.

Some people, be they refugees or not, prefer a different society than ours. This is illustrated by the number of people that have gone back to live in Lebanon.

Seeing that whatever the number, we are limited in how many so the present figures of 30% African and 70% Iraqi and Asian seems fair. It distributes our benevolence. I do not see how to judge if some refugees can be more deserving than others. Yes funds should be available to help resettlement
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 1:52:11 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
An interestingly modern view, Divergence.

>>Pericles, go to the Numbers USA site and you will find a section on the ethics of immigration. All of the world's great religions, including Christianity, teach that we have the greatest responsibility for those who are closest to us<<

Numbers USA is a "non-profit, non-partisan, public policy organization that favors an environmentally sustainable and economically just America", and - it may fairly be said - was set up specifically to oppose immigration. Like One Nation, I suppose.

However, it wasn't always this way in that country. Does the following ring a bell?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

I guess it depends where you sit, really. If you are already on the inside, like the Boaz's and Divergences of the world, to sacrifice a little of ones living standards - the second plasma TV, perhaps - is a shocking and unthinkable hardship. It is also worth pointing out that the US did quite well, economically, out of the "huddled masses".

>>There is actually a medieval Jewish maxim to the effect that you should help a poor relative before a poor stranger and help the poor of your own town before the poor of some other town.<<

There is also an instruction every time you fly, "if you are travelling with a child or someone who requires assistance, secure your oxygen mask first, and then assist the other person."

But be honest, you care as little about your poor neighbour as you do about immigrants, am I right?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 2:32:52 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
Bronwyn,

I'm not opposed to taking more refugees, say 20,000 a year, and believe in proper settlement services for them. My point was that the government doesn't want to provide proper services for its own people and would find it embarrassing to do more for refugees.

Where we seem to differ is that I don't think we have the capacity to help everyone. To lift everyone worldwide out of poverty would take the resources of approximately 3 Earths, even if all of the resources were divided equally (see article by Daniele Fanelli in the Oct. 6 New Scientist). Given that you can't help everyone, how do you decide who to help?

For every person who uses the need to help his own as an excuse to "turn his back on strangers", there is probably a "citizen of the world" who uses the plight of refugees or the world's poor as an excuse to turn his back on his fellow citizens in need. This has the added advantage that it only requires him to loudly criticise the government. Calling for more services for, say, the disabled and their carers would mean putting his hand up to agree to higher taxes.

Pericles was using religion as a stick to beat Christians who aren't in favour of open borders. Jesus approved of the Good Samaritan, but the parable doesn't say that he neglected and deprived his own children while he helped the injured Jew.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 24 October 2007 2:39:02 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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