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 > New immigration solution needs legal backup > Comments

New immigration solution needs legal backup : Comments

By George Williams, published 8/8/2008

The reforms announced last week by Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Senator Chris Evans mark an historic shift in Australian immigration policy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Kipp,

The figures I quoted were only for asylum claims. Other legal immigration was in addition to that, and, of course, illegal immigrants don't necessarily claim asylum. People who have claimed asylum in Britain are allowed to bring in immediate family and also parents and grandparents under some circumstances, and these people would be in addition to the 499,000 over that 7 year period. Migration Watch (www.migrationwatchuk) has collected and posted the Home Office figures on the Web. Numbers have been lower recently, due to reductions in global refugee numbers and possibly policy changes by the UK government, but there is nothing to say that they could not go up again in the future.

Spikey,

I did give some opinion, but I note that you don't introduce evidence to dispute the facts it is based on: the intractable nature of global poverty, the large numbers of asylum claims, predominantly ill-founded, in countries that release asylum seekers into the community, and the great difficulty of deporting failed asylum seekers. All of these things are documented on the Migration Watch site. Britain is a good parallel for Australia because it is also surrounded by water and is on the far side of Europe from the home countries of the asylum seekers. If you doubt the possible social effects on the host societies of a vast influx of foreigners, take a look at the recent mob violence in Italy and South Africa, the big votes for anti-immigrant parties in Denmark and Switzerland, and the British government's attempt (twice) to jail Nick Griffin, the head of the (anti-immigrant) British National Party, under truth-is-no-defence religious vilification laws. (He had said some things about Islam that were pretty mild compared to what often appears on OLO.)
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 11 August 2008 10:57:57 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
Divergence <<I did give some opinion, but I note that you don't introduce evidence to dispute the facts it is based on: the intractable nature of global poverty, the large numbers of asylum claims, predominantly ill-founded, in countries that release asylum seekers into the community, and the great difficulty of deporting failed asylum seekers. All of these things are documented on the Migration Watch site.>>

Some opinion? It was all opinion. The 'facts' you cite are unrelated to the issue and your opinions.

Moreover, Migration Watch is a group whose very existence is based on opposition to asylum seekers in Britain.

This Forum is debating proposals to reform the Australian asylum seeker process including the mandatory detention regime which has been a humanitarian nightmare. Britain's situation - as a member of the EU and a former colonial power - is totally different from Australia's.

I suppose if you shoot off enough loose cannons you reckon one shot might hit the target (so long as you can remember what the target was).

Recent mob violence in Italy and South Africa are related to general social upheaval related to unemployment and vast disparities in economic opportunities.

Big votes for racists in Denmark and Switzerland have nothing at all to do with any influx of asylum seekers (Switzerland! Really!) Tell us about Pauline Hanson whose meteoric rise on the coat tails of fear was less spectacular than her fall. A fizzer!

I fail to see the relevance of Nick Griffin, the head of the white supremacist British National Party. But it's interesting you quote them as source in support of your spurious arguments. The BNP allow no non-whites to be members: "Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent." https://payments.bnp.org.uk/acatalog/memberships.html

It's a throwback to the old skinheads who hero worshipped Enoch Powell and the Nazi Party. A different age, a different country and a different argument.
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 11 August 2008 11:50:55 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
Spikey,

Migration Watch is quoting the British government's own Home Office figures. The UK government hasn't disputed them, although it might prefer if they were not widely known. You don't just need to show that Migration Watch is opposed to mass migration (an ad hominem argument), you need to show that they have lied about the numbers.

You are implying that I support racist policies of the BNP. I don't. Nevertheless, attempting to jail political opponents, however disagreeable, (and it was thwarted only by the British jury system) is something that is associated more with dictators like Robert Mugabe than with the "Mother of Parliaments". That they would even think of such a thing is indicative of a great deal of social stress.

When I spoke about the mob violence and the like, I said "vast influx of foreigners", not "asylum seekers". From the news reports, the victims of the violence mostly were asylum seekers in South Africa, but probably not in Italy. If there is not enough to go around, then adding more people is unlikely to help. There is also evidence that too much diversity itself can lead to severe social stresses, as Robert Putnam has found

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118510920/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Switzerland has a large proportion of foreign residents.

If very large numbers of people are willing to go through all of Europe and cross the English channel to claim asylum in the UK, why do you think it can't happen here? We clearly don't have enough water for the existing population. How many people can we reasonably take, and what happens when that number is exceeded? How would you deal with people who make asylum claims, not because they are persecuted, but because they want a "better life"? How can you discourage such people from crowding out genuine refugees, when they know it will be next to impossible to deport them? If you don't like Howard's answers, where are yours?
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 11 August 2008 3:43:20 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,

As I said in my last posting (and you ignored) " This Forum is debating proposals to reform the Australian asylum seeker process including the mandatory detention regime which has been a humanitarian nightmare."

So it's of little consequence whether you quote the British old school right (Migration Watch) or the British loony right (the BNP).

You failed to show how Britain relates to Australian asylum seeker policy, you've tried Switzerland, you've tried Italy, you've tried Denmark - all without success. Now you're trying USA, but Putman is of no more relevance to Australian debates on asylum seekers than your other straw men.

You conclude with the only question relevant to this forum: "If you don't like Howard's answers, where are yours?"

My answer is to go back to the current government's proposed reforms. They don't go far enough, but they are miles in front of the disgraced and discarded Howard regime. Come on back into Australia and tell us why these reforms will not work for Australia and refugees seeking asylum in Australia.
Posted by Spikey, Monday, 11 August 2008 6:01:22 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
Spikey,

You claim that you have exposed all my arguments as straw men. You have not. You have simply asserted, without evidence, that nothing that has happened overseas is at all relevant to Australia, as if we were living in some sort of Magic Kingdom where everything always turns out right. Of course it isn't possible to argue on the basis of Australian evidence, because the Hawke/Keating government introduced mandatory detention, and this has discouraged large numbers from arriving.

In your view, the UK is somehow special because it was a colonial power and belongs to the EU. EU citizens can live and work in other EU countries, but this has nothing to do with asylum. The individual countries make their own decisions on granting asylum. This graph shows total 2001 asylum claims by country. The US and Germany, never big colonial powers, had nearly as many as the UK and more than France, which did have a colonial empire. Austria, Switzerland and the Czech republic also rank high.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_asy_see-immigation-asylum-seekers

You have asserted that only a small number of "racists" are concerned about the issue of immigration numbers. See

http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/258.pdf

I wouldn't be disturbed by as many as 20,000 refugee admissions a year, provided that they are genuine and given proper settlement services, because they are such a small percentage of our excessively high immigration intake. Any sort of open ended commitment to take in people, however, is profoundly foolish, as is what is effectively open borders for anyone claiming to be a refugee. I put a high value on being humane, but I also put a high value on our environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedoms, and the welfare of our less fortunate fellow citizens.
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 12 August 2008 3:06:16 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
George

Thanks. I think you as an ALP member and possible future ALP Parliamentarian are too soft on the Rudd Government. The excision retains the Howard policies.

As I wrote in a letter to the Australian, close down all our concentration camps, Senator Evans.
Posted by Passy, Tuesday, 12 August 2008 8:57:13 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. All

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