Dear Banjo,

I am still waiting in expectation and solidarity for you to join with me in barring Scottish immigrants into this country. Your reluctance is a little bewildering given your avowed motives of protecting Australians from criminal behaviour not in keeping with our values and our way of life.

More evidence?

Quote

“In Glasgow, Scotland's biggest city, a stabbing occurs every six hours - and many more go unreported. Survey after survey, from the World Health Organisation to the United Nations, identifies Glasgow as one of the most violent cities in western Europe. Among young males aged between 10 and 29, the rate of homicide is similar to Argentina, Costa Rica and Lithuania. Alcohol-related death rates are three times the British average while Scots have one of the lowest life expectancies in Europe.

The nightmare is constant, a cycle of violence that each weekend sees the alcoholic and drug addicted, chronically unemployed and angry, the young and the old, take to the streets armed with knives, machetes and even samurai swords to battle the demons of disillusionment - and each other.

Three-quarters of all weapons crimes in Scotland occur in the Strathclyde policing district in and around Glasgow. Between 5000 and 6000 are recorded each year and more than 2200 hospital beds are taken up with the victims.

The raw statistics are mind-boggling. But they do not explain why blade-carrying is so culturally imbued among Glaswegian men, from the razor gangs of the 1930s to the 100 or so motley, territorial mobs who prowl the vast housing schemes around the city today.

Is it possible that generations of alcohol abuse, extreme disadvantage and social distress - combined with inculcated machismo and a modern drug culture - have created a cocktail toxic enough to see a penchant for violence hardwired into the Glaswegian psyche?

End quote.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/fear-and-loathing-in-the-city-of-rage-20110610-1fwxq.html

“penchant for violence hardwired into the Glaswegian psyche”

Australia has less than a tenth the rate of weapons crime than Glasgow. How about stepping up and joining me in doing something about stopping this criminal culture infecting our shores.

Fox,

I do wish that leftist politically correct term 'discrimination' was dropped. Because its use implies the very opposite of its meaning and muddies the waters, which is the intention isn't it?

Honestly now, what is and should be the aims of immigration? I am damned sure the public doesn't sign up to the aim you always imply, of never ending diversity to ethnically cleanse Australia of its 'white' inheritance and traditions. Leftist cultural elitism has always kowtowed to anything foreign. -As long as that doesn't mean the US or UK it now appears, although in the past leftists merely(sic) disparaged Australians. It is recognised as leftist self-revulsion and was(is?) popular in university sociology departments.

Of course Australia is discriminating as to who is allowed into the country, let alone permanent residency. It should and must be discriminating.

You did not manage to Google this, but why not?

<The criteria for the Migration Programme(sic) are selective —those applicants who meet Australia's requirements and have good prospects for successful settlement are chosen. There are detailed rules governing entry in each migration category and selection is based on a case-by-case assessment of applications.

Migrants may be selected on the basis of such factors as relationship to an Australian permanent resident or citizen, skills, age, qualifications, capital and business acumen. All applicants must also meet the health and character requirements specified by migration legislation.

If a person satisfies Australia's selection criteria, they stand an equal chance of being selected, unless there is a cap imposed on the number of visas allocated to a particular category.

All applicants for permanent entry to Australia must be assessed against Australia's health and character requirements, which are designed to exclude any people whose presence in Australia would not be in the interest of the Australian community.>
https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/01backgd.htm

There is nothing to prevent Australia from putting whatever emphasis it requires into its immigration policy. From the experience of Rotherham (UK) to take just one example, immigration policy had better put effort into undertaking a professional comprehensive risk analysis of its immigration policies and processes post-haste.

Hello there FOXY...

Firstly, I hope you and yours, all have a very happy and healthy 2015 !

You made a statement somewhere along the lines of; '...currently all Australians are equal under the law...' ? In theory perhaps, but in practice far from it I'm afraid ? I'm being a bit disingenuous I suppose, but in the criminal law, justice is a commodity that can often be bought ? I don't mean as in corruption (though corruption does penetrate through the system occasionally) I mean if you possess the necessary wherewithal, justice tends to favour those with the best and brightest of Counsel ? I could cite a well known case, but I'd rather not if you don't mind ?

However what you say in principle is quite true, we're all equal under the law - it's a fundamental truth under our system of jurisprudence.

Foxy,
Notice you do not mention culture.

What I suggest is denying entry on cultural practices, nothing else.

I have never seen anything that prevents us from denying entry on cultural grounds. It is reasonable that those groups that have shown us their cultural practices are not acceptable to us are denied entry.

Dear Banjo,

Cultural practices that are against our laws are
are already banned and illegal.
So I don't think that you'll have much success with
what you're proposing.

Foxy,

You must harbour dreadful dislike and resentment towards your fellow countrymen (that is if you regard Aussies that way) to believe as you apparently do that open borders are fine and the welcome mat is out for anyone from anywhere and in whatever numbers want to come.

It appears that you would remove any and all barriers presently in place. Otherwise, which might you retain and kindly avoid vague generalities?

Foxy to the world: 'Here is the open door, matter of fact no door, open season. It is all care and no responsibility, and the police (and victims) can look out for themselves later'.

Remarking on Rotherham (UK) where there are 1400 known victims of sex crimes that you yourself would say in threads on other issues to be the most despicable crime imaginable and possibly worse than death, you opine that there are sex crimes happening anyway and list one!

You are very casual, cavalier, about the safety and welfare of your own countrymen.

What exactly do you believe should be the aims and limits of an immigration program?