"From this time forward, under God
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey."
- Australian Citizenship Pledge
A person may choose whether or not to use the words 'under God.'

With these words, new citizens become part of the Australian community.
They become part of the Australian experience. They promise loyalty, respect and obedience to the law. They share freedoms, responsibilites, and privileges.

So why are we having problems with immigrants? Your thoughts please...

"So why are we having problems with immigrants?"

Foxy are you really sure that we are "having problems with immigrants".

My impression is that throughout our history we have been talking about problems with immigrants and that those percieved problems tend to dissappear as a wave of migrants settle in and we have a new wave of immigrants to worry about. Years ago it was the southern europeans (wogs), then vietnamise, then asians in general and now muslims (possibly a shift underway to african's).

My impression is that most of what problems exist are not with the adults who have chosen to move to Australia but rather with the second generation in their teens who did not choose to move here and are trying to find a place. Most will later settle down and raise kids who fit in well and love the country. I suspect that for the most part it is much ado about very little.

R0bert

I can't be sure, because it was so long ago, but I thought that my citizenship ceremony involved my swearing allegiance to the Queen.

I recall thinking at the time wow, that's the first time anybody has asked me to take that oath, and I had to come all the way to Australia to do it.

Interesting afterthought, though.

If I were now to vote for a republic, wouldn't that be contrary to my oath of allegiance?

If it isn't, what force does such a commitment have?

And by association, what is the force of the current loyalty pledge? If they are not designed to be taken seriously, then aren't they just a bunch of words?

As I see it, we spend far too much time waving nationalist flags of convenience, and far too little time trying to get on with each other.

"why are we having problems with immigrants?"

Because they're people. You might as well ask, why are we having problems with politicians...or company directors...or single mothers...or evangelists...or OLO posters?

And personally I've never had problems with immigrants in my life - my Dad was one, my wife is one, at least a third of my closest friends and work colleagues through the years have been, and indeed probably close to 75% of my neighbours are.

I brought up this topic because of some the posts that we've been having on other threads to get a better consensus of opinion from this forum's contributors. People were expressing concern about the Cronulla riots, someone suggested a Jihad is about to descend on us.
Then there's the thread dealing with 'Multiculturalism - ongoing madness.' Another one calling for limiting the number of migrants into this country, and the kind of migrants to accept.

Yet you all seem to think its all a "storm in a teacup," as RObert sees it. You don't see any racist elements in our society. No scapegoating. No separatism, or any anti-Muslim agitation.

That's interesting. Because I had quite the opposite impression from reading the posts on these other threads. I would be delighted if you were correct and I was wrong. That would be wonderful. I could stop worrying about our country's future.

Foxy, I don't think most people have problems with immigration, but there's a vocal and aggressive minority of people who do for various reasons, and they seem to be over-represented at OLO.

I was born here, so the citizenship oath is something I'm not required to enact - although I don't have any problems with it if the "Under God" bit is optional or absent. On the subject of immigration, my only concerns are the environmental impact of 'mass' migration, although I don't agree that term applies to the current rate.

As I've said before, I think immigration to Australia should be restricted on environmental and humanitarian grounds to bona fide refugees. And I have no problems with such refugee immigrants being required to make a formal commitment to Australia. The oath that Foxy quoted would be fine if the God bit was removed.

Hi foxy
well..as CJ said:

<<"there's a vocal and aggressive minority of people who do for various reasons, and they seem to be over-represented at OLO.">>

Probably me :) ...
One issue I have is with those who feel they can benefit from all our freedoms and liberties, only to:
a) Disprespect our laws and customs.
b) Work activly to destroy them.

I notice that the 13 Muslims accused in the Terrorism case in Melbourne will not stand up when the Magistrate enters or leaves the court room... in so doing they express utter contempt for our legal system and customary practices.

I hope they get charged with 'Contempt of court' each time they don't stand.

That...is one problem with 'immigrants' but some of them were born here, so its a problem more with 'immigrant religion'.

The various other clashes which have become news fodder over recent weeks..... Sudanese migrants/refugees (nominally Christian).. gang violence at Dandenong station and Flemington.. (that one was more north African Muslims) are more a problem of poor resettlement policy than migrants themselves.

1/ Resettlement should be aimed at preventing large pockets of single race/religion.
2/ If this cannot be accomplished...then reduce migration to levels where it can.

quite simple really.

Foxy, we clearly have some bits that don't work as well as they might in a perfect word, both with a small proportion of immigrants not respecting the rest of us and with "You don't see any racist elements in our society. No scapegoating. No separatism, or any anti-Muslim agitation."

Overall I don't see those as a problem with migrants, just part of the way life works. Most of those who complain about migrants are fairly vocal about all sorts of other groups who are not the same as themselves. I hope that they are a small enough minority that they don't present a serious threat to national wellbeing.

R0bert

since it is very possible to find yourself unemployable in oz, those that were born here feel entitled to ask: why are you importing more people, when i can't find work?

and plenty of immigrants and their children are in similar circumstances, and have similar feelings.

the libs and their supporters are not inclined to help these people, and have curtailed support services such as job training and education which makes the situation even worse. labor will do a little better, but not much. oz society creates 'losers', and the successful majority are not inclined to share their wealth. when the losers are identifiable by dress, language, and cultural differences, then scapegoating is the end result.

being an australian subject (not citizen, you're a lot of fore-lock tugging 2nd class people in your own land) means you can watch this process erode oz culture, and be able to do nothing about it. depressing, eh.

Foxy,

Having been part of the other threads you've referred to, I'm equally amazed this hasn't raised the same reticence as seen elsewhere.

As possibly the newest citizen in this thread (taken around 6 weeks ago now) I was not only happy to take the oath but very proud to take on my rights and obligations of Australian citizenship, and might I add I chose to include under God, though it was optional.

Further, at the ceremony there were a mix of around 14 nationalities (at the one prior there was 21 nationalities).

For me the ceremony was an emphasis of what makes up Australia: immigrants. The fact that generations may now have passed, we all arrived here at some point along the ancestral line, even the Aboriginals. The fact I look "Australian", having a British line has meant there have been no assimilation issues - more surprise when people learn I wasn't Australian in the first place.

This fact, that I've always looked Australian, has offered sitations with people where they've asked "spot the Aussie", etc: with me only adding that many of the people in question are more Australian than I.

So back to your original question: what does being an Australian mean? Well, for my two cents worth, it's about a fair go, equality of gender, race, religion and culture, it's about multiculturalism (even if this is not entirely government policy anymore). That we are not one people who make up a nation, but a nation of many peoples.

My hope is that we continue to recieve many peoples all bringing their cultures, beliefs and practices ... especially their cuisine!

I was born in this country (although my ancestry is European) and I remember my parents talking about their Australian Citizenship with pride.

To me Australia has always been a unique setting, moulded and modernised through waves of settlement by people from all over the world. The values and principles of Australian society have always reflected the strong influences on Australia's history and culture. These include Judeo-Christian ethics, a British political heritage and the spirit of the European Enlightenment. Distinct Irish and non-conformist attitudes and sentiments have also been important.

We've always rejected the use of violence, intimidation and humiliation as ways to settle conflict in our society. We've always had compassion for those in need.

I always thought that respect for the free-thinking individual and the right to be different were the foundations of Australian democracy. That's why so many people want to become Australians.

Reading your posts confirms that I wasn't wrong. Thank-You.

With regards to animals, "Australian" means that the species evolved here, whereas for humans the place of evolution of the species or race is irrelevant. For example rabbits are introduced pests even though they have spent 20-odd generations here.
With regards to humans, most people mean "white"... plenty of whites are technically migrants in that they migrated here but they are not what is referred to as migrant. Similiarly plenty of non-whites were born here but are referred to as "migrants" or "people of migrant background"

Being Australian is different things to different people. For people like me it is the be all and end all! Its my everything.

For the refugee who got off the plane last weeks its free housing free food dole payments and security! For many others it’s a cash cow for them to earn money in Australia and then to go back to their country of origin and live like kings!

Others look at Australia as a place where they can get a good education and life style for there children (nothing wrong with wanting that) but forming ethnic ghetto’s getting a satellite link to there “home” countries news/entertainment network and only dealing with main stream Australia when they want health care, education or some other sort of benefit which is not readily available in the country they left. These people only want to be treated as an Australian when it suits them.

Citizenship ceremonies are mealy that! Just ceremonies! Talk is cheap, deeds are everything!

"We've always rejected the use of violence, intimidation and humiliation as ways to settle conflict in our society."

Interesting statement Foxy. I think it might depend on your point of view of Australia. We do after all celebrate our "diggers" - strong link to violence (although our celebration is based more around resilience and tenacity of spirit). And the comment makes it obvious that you grew up in the city and didnt read much about "the outback". On the other hand I have grown up around shearing sheds, and listened to and read plenty of stories of drunken brawls, and fisticuffs to settle scores. So, I dont really agree with your comment - I think it is a very rose-coloured view of our society both now and in the past, and one that comes from the comfort of living in a "good" suburb.

Have to agree that, in a country which began as a rough, cruel outstation for human beings I also thought Foxy's remark a little peculiar.

From the unspeakable cruelties of the convict age, through to the treatment (ongoing) of the original inhabitants, The Eureka Stockade, bushrangers, the White Australia policy and the treatment of immigrant "wogs, chinks, towel-heads and lebs.", I admit I have never seen Australia in quite the same light as that described by Foxy.

I do understand she is perhaps trying to illustrate the "fair go" ethos, but still it seemed a strange choice of qualities with which to try to define what being Australian was? Or am I looking at things with a jaundiced eye?

Pericles raises an interesting point with his recollection of when, long ago, whilst already having the status of British subject, he was required to swear loyalty to the Sovereign in taking up Australian citizenship, a requirement that he had never had placed upon him in the UK. His experience is shared by many native-born Australians in a curiously inverted way.

One of the times you might especially expect to have to swear such an oath, or make such affirmation, is upon entering into military service. 20 year old Australian men, chosen in a birthdate ballot under the Selective National Service legislation of the mid-1960s were required to present themselves for military service for two years full time, and subsequently three years part time. The vast majority did so; I was one of them. To my surprise, there was no swearing in.

For many years I thought it to be either an act of gutlessness, or one of presumptuous arrogance, on the part of the government of the day that we were not sworn in. I remember I felt cheated at the time, for I regarded the oath (the real one, not the unconstitutional rubbish one of recent years) as a recognition of the equal status and obligation of all Australians, politicians of the day (perhaps especially) included, with respect to the law and our constitutional heritage, which is embodied in our constitutional monarchy.

Many years passed before I realised that no swearing-in was strictly necessary for conscripted Australian-born servicemen. In the absence of any overt act or utterance to the contrary, their loyalty was to be, rightly, presumed. It's different if you are volunteering for service, or standing for election: you may have, or be suspected of having, ulterior motives in doing so. Hence the requirement for an express oath or affirmation.

Pericles was cheated, too, I suggest. In his case, the fact that his new Australian citizenship in reality represented a downgrading of his status to below that of a politician was intended to be disguised by the administration of the proper oath.

Perhaps I am looking at life through rose-coloured glasses. It's been my means of survival over all these years. As for living in a "well to do suburb." Well I grew up in the Western suburbs of Sydney - in a small fibro house surrounded by vegetable farms. My dad worked in a rubber factory and mum in a spinning mill. Both worked double shifts to pay off the house. Our biggest treat was when dad would buy us a block of chocolate on pay day.

When I said that Australians reject the use of violence, intimidation and humiliation as ways to settle conflict in our society I was referring to what I had been brought up to believe to be the values
that are central to Australia remaining a stable, prosperous and peaceful cummunity.

I was speaking in generic terms of what I felt this country's core values were.

Foxy,
Although I believe It would be in our best interests to dramaticly reduce immigration, I do not think we have a problem with immigrants.

Our problems is with people of some cultures, be they immigrants or born here. Some of these are second or even third generation but their anti-social and unlawful behavior is handed down. Take the Croats and Serbs, they hate and fight over issues centuries old and half the world away. The Lebs that caused the problems at Cronulla were at least second generation born here but their anti-social behavior, particularly to girls, falls far short of acceptable standards in our society.

These groups, and others that carry out beliefs and activities such as cock fighting, forced arranged marriages, FGM, suppression of women, eating of prohibited foods clearly believe their cultural activities are more important than our laws and standards. They are unwilling or unable to integrate with the rest of our community.

Prospective immigrants need to be fully informed about our society before they arrive here and integration assesment carried out to stop those coming that have shown to be the cause of problems. I think many migrants have not been fully or acurately informed about Aus and get a shock on arrival to seen the difference. If they cannot integrate they cannot be happy here.

The multicultural policy gave the false impression that all groups could get along with each other and we would adapt to their cultural ways. 'Unity in diveraity' is truely a furphy. Not all cultures are compatable. If our aim is to have a cohessive society then we must have a discriminatry immigration process.

When I became an Australian citizen, a while back, I used the affirmation form. Even so, I couldn't help feeling at the time that it was a bit hollow. In particular, the bit about sharing the democratic beliefs.

What belief exactly was it that I was sharing? The democratic process is subverted by lies and factionalism within parties. In practical terms, Australian democracy involves a periodic choice between two groups that look almost identical from the outside, and which are run from the inside by unelected (by the people) minorities.

Perhaps I should have sworn the religious form of the oath. At least then I'd have been consistent about believing things that are untenable.

Sylvia.

PALIMPEST said:

<<"The Fijian Indian thinks the Chinese a joke who thinks whitey bludges who laugh at the Allah blokes who sneers at the the poncy Italians who.........et bloody cetera. And all get on just fine.">>

in the Tom Calma thread.. and I loved it :)

But Palimp... what you didn't focus on.... is what can happen among these groups when... SHORTAGEs arise.

-Shortage of Job prospects.

If work is thin,....which ones do you put off? Aah..of course from YOUR perspective "Its all about performance" but.. (now this is secret mens business mate.. listen up) from THEIR perspective.... if you put off the Aboriginals first.. "Oh.. this bloke hates blacks"
Or.. the Muslims "Aah..he is an Islamophobe" or.. if the Asians "He hates slopes, only employed us as tokens"

NO..of course this might not be as graphic as I've painted it here, but absolutely assure you,...in the real world...where I also live, such things are a product of NOT regarding all of ourselves as 'Australians' first and foremost.

They are also a product.. a direct result of 'MULTI' cultural policies.

You and others can deny it till next seasons calves come home with the cows...but it will always be true.

P.S. Loved your 'et-bloody-cetera' :) gold.

We all know that secretly (well, not really so secretly) B_D needs to beat the two posts per thread per day posting limit to the comments thread to the OLO article "A year of wedges among the multicultural success stories", now showing at a screen near you. And pretty much on topic he is, here and there, too, because:

Being Australian means being able to buck the system.

Provided it is well done of your poster, bucking the system can be quite entertaining, useful even. It is to be noted that no article discussion was diverted to the general discussion area of the Forum, so no Forum rule was broken there. Forum rules are silent as to the reverse, should that be thought to be occurring.

Whilst it may be claimed that B_D's post represents the thin end of the wedge with respect to outflanking posting limits, it has to be recognised that wedges are what the article is all about: B_D is simply providing a demonstration of intelligent system-bucking in action, and, in compliance with the maxim "one picture is worth a thousand words" is both beating the word limit and staying right on topic here as well; so put that in your Forum log and split it, ed!

Just between you, me, and the Thought Police, I think B_D is simply taking advantage of an opportunity to show off his new capitals-reduced writing style, and very good that style is, too. (Actually, Foxy, I think it might have been the fully capitalised title to this topic that sucked him in. But let's not have any acronymy over this.) Who said an old dog can't learn new tricks!

Speaking of bucking the system, did everybody see Communicat blow the whistle on around 2,700,000 Aussies who didn't vote the other week in the discussion "One in five Australians failed to vote...."? And how I blew the whistle on a very, very much smaller number of Aussies who voted maybe as many as 2,700,000 times between them?

Not a bad thread, nice to see the raving abusive types haven't found their way here yet.

I concur with the earlier posters who made the point that the problem isn't immigrants per se - the problem we have, is with people.

Boaz, you may be surprised to hear that I partly agree with you - if indeed, those taking part in the court case aren't standing and showing due respect to the court, then of course I think the book should be thrown at them, and they should all be fined for contempt of court.

This is the core issue here - on OLO we see many people agitating to have immigrants from certain cultures restricted.

If there are cultures that aren't fitting in with Australian society, then the solution isn't to ban these cultures from entering - the logical solution is to make sure we treat everyone the same, and have robust laws. There's an element of hypocrisy in treating migrants differently, given that it's this different behaviour that's allegedly making problems.

If somebody thinks they can get away with things like disrespecting the court, then they need to suffer the consequences. I don't care if it's Darryl, the third generation Aussie sheep shearer from Oodnadatta or Khalid, the Lebanese migrant. You break the law, you suffer the punishment.
If the anti-immigrationist minority is right (and I don't think they are necessarily) and certain cultures aren't behaving, then those people will very quickly come up against the law.

Some people tend to think this will result in problems, but I tend to think that the issue here isn't about migrants at all, but it's about our adversarial legal system (I tend to think the inquisitorial model used in Japan is far more effective).

In any case, of course there are some difficulties when coming from a new culture and we need to understand that, but by the same token, we just need to ensure we treat all Australians equally - be they new citizens or have been here for generations.

I can't help wondering what Pericles the Cheated thinks of all this shameless cross promotion.

In so wondering I am not really trying to derail the discussion, for all the excursions touched upon in recent posts are but facets to the central issue, that as to the uncertainty abroad as to what being Australian, and Australian citizenship, means.

The one thing that is clear is that the status of all Australians, native-born as well as aspirant immigrant, purports to have been changed, so far as citizenship is concerned. Most are in the dark as to exactly what change has occurred. Pericles (Now Lower than a Politician) put his finger right on the light switch when he asked the question "If I were now to vote for a republic, wouldn't that be contrary to my oath of allegiance?"

Too right, I am very much tempted to say, but it isn't quite that simple a dichotomy.

To start with, you would not be voting FOR a republic (should that be your desire), but voting in one or a number of referendums proposing alteration to the Constitution. The violation of oath of allegiance would be that of those, being members of the Parliament at the time, who handed off the drafting and debate of the referendum proposals to any persons not being members and not enjoying Parliamentary privilege. Make no mistake, the very discussion of such a proposal breaks the law, and the only place where that breaking of the law can happen is within the Parliament, under privilege.

By promoting an oath or affirmation different to that of the one set forth in the Schedule to the Constitution, the archetypal Australian politician seeks to take the spotlight off their own disloyalty and breach of oath by making the real Constitutional oath unfamiliar.

The simple definition of a person, not being born here, and having come here to lawfully reside subject to Australian immigration law not already being a British subject, as Australian, should be that of their having subscribed, and continued to honour, that Constitutional oath and monarchy.

TurnRightThenleft,
What you have to say about letting the law take care of those that show contempt for our laws sounds good, in theory, but has not,does not and will not work in practice. For as long as I can remember there have been complaints about the leniency of setencing and inability of the law to act as a deterant. The current rukus about the sentencing of the QLD rapists is ample testimony of the law being inept.

For about 10 years beach attendees at Cronulla complained about the conduct of the Leb gangs, to no avail, before acting to retake their beach. The conduct of the gang rapists, Bankstown court, left much to de desired and the accused friends and relos hissed and spat on the victims when going to amd from court durong adjournments. No action taken. The conduct of the Pakistani rapists in court was nothing short of appalling and should never be tolerated.

Occasionally there is a raid and charges made, particularly in Brisbane, relative to cockfighting. They are found guilty, receive a slap on the wrist and are back in business soon.

What young girl would lay complaint about being forced to marry. At the very least she would be ostracised by her total family.

All Governments have known about FGM being carried out here for at least 14 years. One hospital alone treats about 50 patients a year for post FGM problems. Yet there has never been anyone charged with an offence. How many young girls suffer the torture and pain of FGM without medical attention in not known. This is Australia in 2007, not some medievil backwater.

These are just a few example of how the law is inept. There may be other groups heavily engaged in extortion, home invasion, sex slavery and worker exploitation. If they are identafiable they too should be prevented from immigrating. We do not have to import those groups that cause harm and problems.

My thanks, Forrest Gumpp, for my new title - Pericles the Cheated - standing proudly next to Richard the Lionheart, Ethelred the Unready and Vlad the Impaler. I shall wear it with the appropriate modesty.

The direction taken by this thread is certainly puzzling. I beg to differ, by the way, that a thread headed "BECOMING AN AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN... WHAT DOES BEING AN AUSTRALIAN MEAN?" is entitled to encompass quite so broad a church.

Boaz is not being entirely honest, for example, with his dissertation on whom, in a multicultural workforce, he will fire first in times of trouble. He knows as well as I do that the answer is the one that most positively impacts his bottom line, be he aryan demi-god or fuzzy-wuzzy hottentot.

If he had so admitted, his contribution would be entirely valid, under the "that's what being Australian means" rule. He would also be justified to point out that an even simpler approach to the problem is to outsource the whole bloody lot to Wuhan. Can't get much more Australian than that.

Banjo, of course, has stretched the concept of "Variations on a Theme of Australianness" - a work, incidentally, for four trombones and a didgeridoo - with a detour into the evils of female genital mutilation. This, in the middle of a riff on all the evils visited upon us by "Leb gangs", "Pakistani rapists", unidentified (but presumably un-Australian) persons engaged in cockfighting, as well as "extortion, home invasion, sex slavery and worker exploitation".

It makes you realize, doesn't it, how peaceful Australia would be without all these nasty people. We'd just have to make do with our own home-grown serial killers and child rapists, wouldn't we?

But at least they'd be Austrayan, eh?

Banjo - I agree with some of your diagnosis but your cure is the wrong one.

If the law isn't working, then you fix the law, instead of leaving it broken and resorting to cultural profiling.

Pericles,
If you had read the first post you would have seen that:-
Foxy started this thread and ended with the question "So why are we having problems with immigrants?" and asked for our thoughts.

I replied to that question with my opinion that we do not have problems with immigrants but we do with people of some cultures. I then explained my reasons for this opinion and what I consider we should do about it. Turn Right Then Left disagreed with me and stated it should be up to the law to address the problems. I then gave examples of how the law fails to remedy the matters.

All the above is entirely in keeping with the first post by Foxy.

You are right in one respect. We have enough of our own criminals and bad cultural practices, we certainly do not need to import more.

Turn Right Then Left. I only wish you were right and it would be good if the law would satisfactorly address the probems we have with some cultures, but that will not happen. I might add that we have many migrants that have different cultures, but we have no problems with them.

I dont think we a re having trouble with immigrants - or at least what trouble we do have is not a new phenomenon.

You have to expect some tension when people from other cultures come into ours - and you have to be a fool to expect them to make wholesale adjustments to their cultural and belief structures just becasue we want them to do so - and some seem to want them to do it overnight.

The Vietnamese were supposed to be our ruination at one stage; now we harangue the Muslims and lately the Sudanese.

We have by and large invited or at least allowed people to come here - some times out of altruisitc ideals some times with the express purpose of exploiting their skills - either way we have a resposibility to be aware of the differences and structure their transition into our community in such a way as the differences are managed.

We are the senoir parties in the contract - we have the resources and the knowledge base and the responsibilty to make it work - that is not to say there is not a reciprocal responsibility on their part but as the hosst nation we need to take the lead.

And lets face it we are vastly out numbered on this planet - we are not replacing ourselves - our overseas brothers and sisters are - so if we think we can keep all of this to ourselves and strictly on our terms.......we are fools.

I'm very interested in people's point of views.My husband came to Australia as a small child his parents paid x amount as migrants from Sweden,he joined the navy & served until he was given a medical discharge many years later.He grew up here,when joining the navy he swore allegiance to the flag & country,he pays taxes & votes so is he Australian?He has now been informed he has to take out citizenship we have found this to be totally confusing?When is an Australian not as Australian??

You have every right to be confused.

Just go to the dictionary and look up the words stupid and xenophobic - both entries will feautre a picture of the offices of the Department of Immigration and Indigenous Affairs ( Australia ) and accompanying photographs of the staff therein with Amanda Vanstone and Kevin Andrews wearing the obligatory Brown Shirts.

Dr Who,
If your husband was not born here, he must take out citizeship if he wants to be Aussie. However I was unaware that non-citizens could join our defence forces. I have a step son who had to take out citizenship to join the public service in Canberra.

sneekeepete,
I think you are not facing reality as you have not said what action you would take about those cultural groups that will not reciprocate. What do you propose about those that will not or cannot accept that our laws and social standards are above any cultural practices they may have? I am interested to see your proposals and I am open to suggestions.

Do we simply accept that Lebanese muslim males are rude, abusive and arrogant to females and keep importing them. Most other muslims are not like this nor are non-muslim Lebanese. What people do in other countries is their affair but I will not accept that any young girl in Aus should have to endure the barbaric practice of FGM. Australia is not the place for them. No more of these groups should be accepted.What about the Croats and Serbs do we just accept they will continue to fight each other, after soccer, for x generations to come.

Please do not simply say the law will prevail. I have already shown TRTL how inept our laws are. I have made representations to the NSW Minister for Health about FGM and fobbed off. It will take the death of a young girl or two before anything at all is done. Only then if the media decides to run with it until some other issue comes up.

Our laws cannot even stop our kids from mistreatment and abuse

The original inhabitants of Australia have been experiencing a lot of problems with immigrants for the last few hundred years.
Introduced diseases and the use of guns killed off a lot of the indiginous population. The new arrivals then set about taking over ownership of the country and inviting a whole lot of other immigrants to join them.
If the original immigrants had to satisfy the present requirements to become a resident of Australia then there would not be so many people in the country today.

Pericles..

we fire people on the basis of 'bottom line' in terms of job performance and suitability to the task and the amount of work at hand. YES.. I didn't suggest otherwise.

the POINT (finger required again) is that in a multi ethnic/ multi religious workforce where the groups tend to cling... THEY will be just as likely to do the 'math' *Hmmm he probably fired so and so because he doesn't like Muslims* or the such like.
Just imagine if Cronulla had happened the week b4 you need to let a Lebanese Muslim worker go eh ?
nah..of course they would see your white skippy rear end as 'squeeky clean' :)

Boaz, I must have misunderstood.

>>we fire people on the basis of 'bottom line' in terms of job performance and suitability to the task and the amount of work at hand. YES.. I didn't suggest otherwise.<<

For a moment I thought you were suggesting that you would avoid firing your non-skippies for fear of being seen as racist.

Oh, wait a minute...

>>Just imagine if Cronulla had happened the week b4 you need to let a Lebanese Muslim worker go eh ? nah..of course they would see your white skippy rear end as 'squeeky clean'<<

Hmm, it would appear that's exactly what you were saying.

If your paranoid fear and loathing has reached the level where you cannot bring yourself to manage your workforce efficiently in case you upset someone's ethnic sensibilities, I strongly suggest that you restrict your hiring practices to skippies, thus avoiding any possible discomfort.

Would that solve your problem? I somehow doubt it would be entirely positive to your bottom line, but - as long as it keeps you happy.

Incidentally, you keep harping on about Cronulla. Despite your relentless efforts to fan the flames, there has been remarkably little by way of racial conflagration, following that little beachside skirmish. Continually repeating "remember Cronulla (casualties: nil)" does little for your reputation as a reliable social commentator.

Have a great day.

Dr. Who: I recently took Australian citizenship, though have lived here the majority of my life. Did I feel any different by taken on Australian citizenship? Well I was able to vote (though guessing your husband already is able to do this if he served in the armed forces). I will possibly be called for jury duty? But other than that, the interview process and ceremony were sadly anti climatic. I am not sure if I expected fireworks or similar. Am I more Australian in the past 6-8 weeks than before ... well, legally yes.

Having travelled overseas I've seen the difference in perception to Australians compared to other nationalaties.

The odd thing is that if this thread were being debated in Europe, US, Asia or other areas around the globe, they could tell you what being Australian is. For those that have travelled and showed their Australian passport, even in remote places there is an acceptance of our culture and peoples far beyond many others, certainly Western cultures.

So for those Australians unaware of what being Australian is, I suggest you travel to Vietnam, Mexico, Kenya, Germany, Russia and other places and show your Australian passport - if a dual citizen then show your other one! You'll see a marked change.

Banjo, you say you've shown me how inept the law is, but I haven't actually seen much by way of supporting material there.

I'm aware of the inadequacies of our law, in fact it's something of a pet interest of mine, which is why I advocate the use of the inquisitorial system used in places such as Germany and Japan instead of the british adversarial model.
This can be seen largely because they have higher percentages of successful prosecution. Concerns that this is because offenders aren't given adequate defence aren't legitimate, because they also have lower rates of wrongful imprisonment. It's just a better system, albeit less profitable for barristers and solicitors.

That being said, I think the systemic failures of our legal system go far beyond minor issues of immigration, and I reject the assertion that you've shown the legal system can't be adapted to cope with these issues.

If everybody who was banging on about the side issue of immigration focused their attention on law reform, we'd be far better off.

You haven't actually made any substantial references to the failures of our legal system, and quite frankly, I think the whole immigration thing is a petty side issue to a legal system that's spawning a whole raft of problems, from unaffordable liability insurance squeezing out community groups, through to social inequities in sentencing and a culture of sanctioned corruption.

Banjo and Corri,thank you for your comments.My husband has always believed he was Australian until he was told without the citizenship papers if he left the country he may not be allowed to re-enter.After coming here legally at a young age,growing up, joining the navy & swearing allegiance to the flag at 15,paying taxes,& voting I must admit it came across to me as though it was all about the fee.The only way his life has changed, he can go over seas & re-enter the country,he still classes himself as an Aussie just like before.How many others aren't aware they have to take out citizenship until it's to late

FOXY....

you started the thread...and yet you say in another topic.. (about reading)

"Then there's Rachel Treasure's, 'The Rouseabout.' An honest and heartfelt tale of life on the land... which captures the very essence of being Australian."

aa-HAH! you knew the answer from the beginning :)

Dear BD,

You'd have to read the book - all I'll say is that 'The Rouseabout' is an unforgettable story about discovering the things that truly matter, and finding love that lasts. And by the end of it you'll yearn for a ute, a pair of boots and the wide open spaces...

But Australia is much more than that ... to me at least.