Rhosty & JDJ,

The Rohingya have been in that part of Burma for, variously, 200, 400 or 600 years. They were born there.

Laws in one country obviously don't carry to another, but it's interesting that anybody born in Australia is thereby an Australian citizen. The current argument and sense of outrage is how an Australian-only citizen can be stripped of his/her citizenship.

By extension of that logic, Rohingya are as Burmese as Shans or Kachins or anybody else born in Burma. If they flee or are expelled, then they are genuine refugees. Do they genuinely fear to stay in Burma ? Then they are genuine refugees.

If we have any compassion for people in situations that we can barely imagine, and will never be in ourselves (unless IS moves on us), then we must surely take a quota of such unfortunate fellow-human beings. Twenty thousand wouldn't be too many. And I would suggest that, to the extent that they are Muslims, jihadism is probably the last thing on their minds.

Joe

"that anybody born in Australia is thereby an Australian citizen.

I'm not sure that's right, is it?

..." then we must surely take a quota of such unfortunate fellow-human beings."

Who's "we"?

You personally will be taking a quota, will you?

If that was the arrangement, I would have no objection

Hi JDJ,

Yes, I would. I have a spare room, two at a pinch. After a relatively comfortable life, it' the least I could do, until people got on their feet here. Where's our sense of a fair go ?

Joe

Loudmouth; sorry I greatly doubt you would. They would have to random and not "selected" to ensure it was a Doctor, Uni comrade or such. Also no-one else would have to bear any liability when damage occurs, it is at your cost (not the tax payers).

People born here are not necessary Australian citizens, as is the case of folk born of illegal migrants!

And given these folk are in essence illegal migrants or the issue of illegal migration, then they are not citizens!

Be they undocumented Mexicans living in the US or any similar ethnic minority, that has simply crossed a border to seek an economic outcome, rather than avoid genuine persecution.

Simply put, being born in a particular location as the issue of non citizens doesn't automatically grant citizenship!

One needs paperwork that proves you were born here or there, and of folks who were themselves legal citizens of somewhere!

Be they new arrivals or a community that has illegally imposed their persons on another ethnic community; and even for hundreds of years; then say out bred them in order to become the dominant culture?

Even so, the child of a non citizen is also a non citizen as are the also non documented issue; and forever!

You have to be the legal issue of the legal issue or come in as a properly documented and invited migrant!

And I'm all for increasing the properly documented refugee migrant intake, if they are compatible and able to integrate! And I do mean integrate, not assimilate!

JKJ is right and the stated countries have a right to fear they too will follow the fate of former Buddhist nations and be simply overwhelmed/put to the sword; as has been the case for so many former Buddhist communities.

And yes the peace loving and tolerant Buddhists can become the most hostile and warlike when they believe their very survival is on the line! i.e., Vietnam!
Rhrosty.

What you talking about, Rhosty ?!

Honestly ! I couldn't follow your logic ! Are you suggesting that Rohingya invaded western Burma ?! That they have terrorised Buddhist villagers !? That they have done such vile things that so many exclamation marks are necessary !?

How do distinguish Bangla economic migrants from genuine Rohingya refugees may not be so hard to do - after centuries living in Burma, Rohingya, even if they still speak Bangla, they would most likely speak it with a distinctive accent. And of course, they would most likely understand Burmese as well, which would rule out Bangla economic migrants.

! Let us know, Rhosty ! when Rohingya carry out a terrorist attack anywhere !

Joe !