Continued by Susan Giblin

To the topic of non-citizen voting-Banjo writes ‘If I did respond [to your article] I most probably said the concept of non-citizens voting was stupid and tthat I do not know of any nation that allows it.’

A number of countries do allow non-citizen voting and I mentioned them briefly in the article. I won’t go into them here.

As for me voting - I don’t have a vote in Ireland because I’m overseas. Like the non-citizen voting rights, every country has different rules. So, Ireland, unlike Australia, doesn’t allow citizens to vote in elections when they are out of the country.

Finally, to Daggett. I found it very interesting to read the article you pointed me towards.

In response to my article you wrote ‘I think its unjust that so many foreign born people have been allowed to "live and work in the community" whilst existing citizens with experience and qualifications are unemployed or working in low-paid dead-end jobs thanks to the state and federal governments' criminal policy of opening the immigration floodgates based on the lie of the "skills shortage".’
Firstly, I don’t think my point about allowing non-citizens to vote is directly related to the immigration policy. It’s about allowing those people who live here for an extended period of time (not tourists) to vote. I don’t see it as necessarily related to how many people the government permits to live and work here or how they go about organising that system.

The issue of immigration policy is such a big, complex and fascinating issue. I would need to do some research on it before I could respond usefully. Perhaps I will do just that.

Also, I am not here on a skilled migrant visa and again would have to do some research into the topic to feel eligible to comment usefully. I am here because my husband is an Australian citizen. Unless we ban Australians from falling in love with non-nationals, I don’t see how we can avoid people like me arriving on these shores!

Thanks again for the comments

Susan,
I did read your original article again and yes, you did mention some 3 countries that do allow for limited voting for non-citizens. these being New Zealand, Ireland and Great Britian. I most likely missed that while busy swearing at the stupidity of the concept.

I see now that you are voiceless, but your problem does not lie with Australia not allowing non-citizens to vote, but with Ireland not allowing its citizens to vote while off shore. That is hardly democratic and it should be addressed to Irish politicians. I note that even Iraqi citizens have been able to vote in Iraqi elections while being in Aus.

Where the Governments do allow for non-citizens to vote, it simply lowers my opinion of those governments further. Not that I think our government sets a very high standard.

Visitors and perminant residents receive a lot of assistance from us and it appears the only advantage citizens now have is being able to vote and able to stand for election.

We even allow for people to have dual citizenship which means they can go and live overseas, in the 'old' country, and receive welfare such as age pension. We are very generous are we not?

I still think your concept is the height of stupidity and will continue to use the article to illustrate silliness.

Tom T,

Firstly, I recently posted the following to the other forum earlier today and had been meaning to post it here:

"Upon further reflection, I have decided that it wasn't appropriate for me to raise my concerns about immigration in the way I did in my first post.

"I should have made it sufficiently clear that Susan Giblin was not unlikely to personally responsible for the way that immigration has been abused by our elites to screw ordinary Australians.

"My own personal experience clouded my better judgement, so I apologise to Susan."

---

Clearly there is a place for immigration and for skilled migrants, but the immigration program has been completely abused in recent years and has harmed many ordinary Australians, including myself.

I might add that the English and Irish are just as much victims of high immigration in their own countries as we are here.

This was shown inadvertently in the pro-immigration Murdoch-owned Courier Mail when they commented on how the British people are fleeing from the UK which has become overcrowded thanks to the same unbelievably stupid high immigration policies that the Murdoch media pushes in this country (See "English expats make Moreton the only Bay in the village" at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24897167-5007190,00.html and "Murdoch media contradicts itself on immigration" at http://candobetter.org/node/1074 for my comments on that article.)

---

TomT wrote, "I don’t think my point about allowing non-citizens to vote is directly related to the immigration policy. ..."

In my opinion, non-citizens' voting rights does raise the issue of immigration.

How could it not further erode the rights of existing residents if large numbers of people from outside the country, many of whom are likely to feel under obligation towards political leaders who have pushed immigration against the clear opposition of the current residents? (Note how former Prime Minister Bob Hawke once boasted that he had imposed "elite as opposed to popular views on immigration" ("Overloading Australia"(2008) pp104-105, O'Connor and Lines, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8838&page=18#140844))

In fact, even many relatively recent immigrants would not altogether disagree. If things don't change, then even they will be screwed in the end.

Susan,

It is extremely frustrating when the only comments you get are negative. One change that would make comments more sensible would be for the true identity of the person making the comments to be made known to the author and for the author to be able to name a person making comments unless there is a good privacy reason for the name to be withheld (e.g. a whistle blower). This only seems fair. The problem with most of the people who make inappropriate and unhelpful comments is that they are bullies and cowards and they hide behind anonymity. If we write articles and we say who we are surely those who make comments - particularly unhelpful ones - should also say who they are. I think this one change would improve the level of comments - perhaps at the expense of a reduction in number of comments.

I think you should look on the bright side Susan?......Tom?

Because if you ARE Tom and not Susan, some vociferous but gentlemanly respondents to your original piece would have metaphorically ripped out your jugular vein!

Every cloud has a silver lining...

For some strange reason this whole thread reminds me of the RAAF stewardess who got upset when Kevin Rudd was mean to her.

Sure Kevin had a lapse and he shouldn't have done it, but servicewomen everywhere winced at their likely loss of credibility too through the trivial nature of the complaint. It they couldn't stand a little heat in a plush aircraft cabin serving tea to an unappreciative PM especially after being specially trained for it, how could they command in war? Would a similar complaint from a steward have been reported? Most likely not and therein lies the problem.

As Ginx implies, a Tom T would not have been treated with kid gloves and critics would surely have been more direct. Being girlie allows one to act miffed and lash out with emotional blackmail - which can be quite a weapon - but it is always at an eventual cost to one's credibility.

There is a message in there somewhere, but it isn't that there should be more censorship.