CHINA ... 1 CHILD and PERSECUTION.....SIEV X... UN CHARTER.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/1995/5.html
Hard going, but very valuable to fellow Aussie cultural warriors.

IF...we sorted out our signatory status once and for all, there would NEVER be any reason to indulge in questionable tactics as suggested by Kevin and Shepherd !

Off topic ? not at all, its all part of the WAR being fought over Australia's status re the UN convention.
This is what, in a legal framework might be termed "Showing true motivation" of those making a noise about this present issue.

I'd love to know where Tony Kevin and Marilyn Shepherd stand on the issue of the succesful claims made by some Chinese 'assylum seekers' that they were 'members of a particular social group' i.e. those who risked persecution by the State if they had more than one child !

When those claims were successful, we stood at the brink of probably MILLIONS of Chinese being lawfully accepted as 'Refugees'. The government quickly proposed changes to legislation which would defeat this and it was FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

a) Why was it fought? (to undermine our social cohesian)
b) by Whom ? (Internationalist/leftists/globalization social terrorists)
c) what would the outcome be if it was defeated ? (The destruction of Australian Identity, and its replacement with an 'international' Identity)

So, I ask Marilyn and Tony.. "Did you support the changes in the Migration act" regarding THIS issue... or not ?

If the answer is 'NO' then we have a clear indication that the real motive for seeking to highlight this Siev X issue is not in fact 'compassion' but in reality, the determined and deliberate, culturally seditious act of undermining our whole social fabric through illegal or at least immoral immigration for political ends.

Col Rouge believes that "refugees should understand that they are here not as a natural right but the acceptance of refugee status puts certain obligations onto them. Assimilation into the existing culture being first and foremost."

So refugees, once found guilty of the crime of being persecuted and hounded out of their country of origin, face the just punishment of being forced to abandon the culture and beliefs of their homeland, which they left only because they faced mortal danger there.

Did I miss something?

Col, would you care to enlighten us from where this moral obligation to assimilate arises? Why must people who are chased out of their homeland by machete-wielding maniacs be forced to abandon their identity too? That would make the machete-wielders' victory complete, wouldn't it? (and make us complicit in the process, to boot).

I would have thought that Christian teaching pretty much morally obliges anyone who calls themself a Christian to offer refuge to the victims of persecution and violence. I wasn't aware of the teaching that those who receive shelter are thenceforth obliged to become Samaritans. Care to provide a reference for it?

Guess you must have a clearer understanding of these things.

Col, Malaysia and Indonesia are exempt because they have not signed the refugee convention not because they are muslim countries.

David, you are a cruel, hard person disguised as a human creature and your diatribe against Chinese refugees reflects more on you than anyone else. As a matter of fact some 15,000 Chinese asylum seekers have come to Australia since 1989 and many thousands of them are still here including many women who had second children and feared persecution or forced abortions.

Is there some sort of strange disconnect between the brains of some on this forum? Col, the information about the Fed Police people smuggling has been covered on the Sunday Program, 7.30 report, in the senate extensively, in most of the print media, statements from the federal police and I have stated my case hundreds of times just as I do today and not once has any fed. come to arrest me.

"David, ...a cruel, hard person ...and your diatribe against Chinese refugees...."

Marilyn ...

In short, my 'diatribe' is against lax immigration policy.

You are misunderstanding my promotion of sound and responsible border control policy with being heartless and cruel. I know you well enough now by your posts to understand that this is your standard way of disagreeing, ad hominem.

EXPLANATION
I don't have any animosity against Chinese as a race.
The issue here is NOT an individual person in dire circumstances, it is POLICY.

We need to examine the other side of the coin which you are tossing into the air.

If the policy was clear, well defined, there would be no question about the status of such a person. The reason this occurred is because of a perceived loophole and vague definition in the UN convention about 'particular social group' meaning.

You are focusing on ONE person, and then, stating that there are many others in the same situation already here, thus you seem to be suggesting that its good for many. Ok.. now the important bit..HOW MANY ? There are 2 options.

1/ All those in similar circumstances in China
2/ Only those who can manage to 'get here'.

Actually, both those points are the same.
So, DO YOU support the idea of ALL or ANY Chinese who are threatened by the government policy on one child being able to come to Australia so they can have more children and live a new life ?

Please answer this carefully and specifically, bearing in mind, that once it becomes KNOWN that Australia is the preferred destination for those in these circumstances, many many many will seek to come here.
In fact.. in a country of a billion people we could quite conceivably find ourselves confronted by numbers approaching our whole current population !

So, clearly a policy response is needed. Call this heartless and cruel if you wish, but is it not the same towards our own if we don't protect our country from overpopulation ?

Would you agree to an annual quota or open slather ?

There are many countries that are partisipants in the UN convention on refuges, including a number of Islamic countries.
Australia and NZ are the furtherest such countries from Iraq and Afghanistan. These countries can be Googled up if anyone is sufficiently interested.

Question. Why would these aslyum seekers want to go to a country furtherest away? Answer. Because of the moneytary benefits that our social security provides. Personal safety is secondary.

It may have made sense to sign the 1951 Refugee Convention after WWII when the refugee situation was entirely different, but it is a different world now. International agreements are not suicide pacts, and this one should be revoked. The Guardian recently had an article on 'Overshoot Day', the day of the year when mankind collectively exceeds the Earth's sustainable capacity for that year. Past that point we are effectively living on our environmental capital, degrading future resources for the sake of present consumption.

According to the Redefining Progress NGO, which publishes environmental footprints (a measure of consumption), the sustainable capacity per person (ratio of total environmental capacity to world population) is 1.8 hectares, as opposed to an environmental footprint of 9.5 hectares in the US and 7 hectares in Australia Australia. 1.8 is about the consumption level of El Salvador. If you compare the footprints with ranks on the UN Human Development Index you will see that below European levels of consumption (average of around 5) human well-being falls off. There are 5 billion people in the world who would have a better average standard of living in Mexico than at home. None of this considers how much worse things will be with continued population growth, peak oil, climate change, etc. Rwanda is just a taste of the fighting and genocides that are likely to occur with growing resource shortages.

Swamping is a very real possibility, as huge numbers of asylum seekers, genuine and otherwise, pour into the developed countries, apart from very remote ones like New Zealand or Iceland. Britain had 490,000 such claims (not counting immediate family members, who are also allowed in) between 1997 and 2004 (Migration Watch UK site). A few thousand refugees are not a problem, but families look after their own first, and so should countries.