The Forum > Article Comments > Australia and xenophobia > Comments
Australia and xenophobia : Comments
By Philip Machanick, published 25/7/2013What are the facts on 'push' and 'pull' factors for asylum seeker arrivals.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
-
- All
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 25 July 2013 4:43:52 PM
| |
I can't reply to everything that's been posted here. I do note however that NO ONE IS CONTESTING THE FACTS.
I will reply to one, though: LEGO, I have dual South African and Australian citizenship and can live wherever I like. And yes, Zimbabwe is a mess and South Africa has significant problems (which some of us are working on rather than running away), but a police state favouring less than 10% of the population is not a viable alternative. I have not specifically addressed in the article the claim that these people are all "economic migrants". If that were the case, why are they all originating from war zones or countries with a history of persecuting minorities -- not big, poor countries like India or Bangladesh? The strange thing about racism is that people don't like being called racist. Why? Because it puts a label on you. Guess what? Racism is exactly about putting labels on people. Anyway keep posting responses. The more mindless hate that is flushed into the open, the more decent people will stop supporting this sort of thing. Posted by PhilipM, Thursday, 25 July 2013 6:20:59 PM
| |
dafid f,
I could say you're racist against people with some brains. Posted by individual, Thursday, 25 July 2013 7:19:44 PM
| |
Hi PhillipM
The reason why MOST "asylum seekers" ( we have had Pakistanis pretending to be Afghans) originate in war zones, is because almost all multicultural societies are war zones, and the illegal immigrants have to have some sort of plausible excuse to barge into Australia and ask directions to the nearest social security office. I don't want my country to become a war zone. We are now getting middle class Iranians pre booking their passages in Iran, because they see Australians as soft touches who will never send them back. Tell me Michael. When you looked for a new country to flee too, why did you pick Australia? Is it because it was largely populated by European people who know how to run a decent country? And you knew that you would be safe there? Well mate, if you have already fled a multicultural third world cesspit, why do you want to make Australia a replica of what you fled from? Australia is still a European country, despite the best efforts of certain traitors to make us into Australia into a third world cesspit. I like it the way it was, and I wish to preserve what is left of my own people's territory and cultural identity. If that makes me a racist, then that is a label I will wear with pride. You must be a racist yourself, because when you fled South Africa, you choose European Australia. You did not choose to immigrate to Zambia, Botswanaland or Bolivia. It is a cultural universal that people prefer to live among their own people, people that they feel safe with and with whom they feel kinship. Your own preference for Australia for a new country revealed your own racist "xenophobia." But if you want to be accepted as an Australian, you had better figure out who's side you are supposed to be on. Australians will never accept you as an "Australian" if you work against the interests of the people of this country that you aspire to be a citizen of. Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 25 July 2013 7:33:37 PM
| |
Lego, we do not have Pakistanis pretending to be Afghans, that was a dumb lie invented by Philip Ruddock 12 years ago and long disproved but so what if they did? They might still be in need of our protection and in fact over 85% of Pakistanis these days are Hazara and do get protection.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 25 July 2013 7:43:08 PM
| |
The ADA has problems with the Coalitions latest brilliant idea for repelling refugees.
http://ada.asn.au/commentary/formal-comment/2013/oppositions-plan-to-combat-people-smuggling.html Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 25 July 2013 8:40:52 PM
|
<<Pakistan is cancelling the protection of 2.6 million Afghans after hosting them for over 30 years >>
Oh my, surely not, some of your advocate allies had just been telling us how badly Oz compared to those other nations like Pakistan who *HOSTED* so many!
..........................
( Lexi! yoohoo! have you read Marilyn post?
How did you put it now? oh yes:
<<Most countries do not have official re-settlement
programs for refugees, simply adjusting their intake
according to the ebbs and flows of arrivals.>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5889#167908
I guess this is just Pakistan adjusting its intake, ay?
See I told you that *HOSTING* wasn't the same as *RESETTLEMENT*!)
........................
By the way, Marilyn, are you aware that most of the funding for the "refugees" upkeep whilst they were in Pakistan were provided by outsiders like Oz --a rather stingy *HOST*, ay?