David Cameron to introduce tough new laws on EU immigration in response to UKIP election wins.

[MARYROSE02]

Following you down your logical rabbit hole (this one anyway, your world is full of inconsistencies), how can you possibly defend the Australian govt sending refugees to an island with a mono-cultural population of 10,000, with an area of 21 sq km, and a 90% unemployment rate?

 

Using your 'logic', you should be up in arms that such monstrous deliberate social engineering is being imposed by a rich country on an impoverished one.

 

And once again, there is zero comparison between what is being DONE to Nauru by Australia, with an influx of migrants to an already well established multicultural society with a population of 23 or 60 million.

 

But following your logic, if I lived on Nauru, I would have every right to resent 'foreigners' coming to live on my island, but expressing the same sentiment in Australia is wrong. Why? Not because there is any less reason for inter-racial conflict, but because Australia has the space and the resources?

[Harpodom]

But following your logic, if I lived on Nauru, I would have every right to resent 'foreigners' coming to live on my island, but expressing the same sentiment in Australia is wrong. Why? Not because there is any less reason for inter-racial conflict, but because Australia has the space and the resources?

 

How do you see the Nauru experiment ending up Dave?

[MARYROSE02]

Big difference comparing a bankrupt island nation of a handful of residents having numerous outsiders imposed on them and a large immigrant nation as Australia.

Australia was built on immigration and looks to continue to be so. The present government as well as previous one though are faulty in wanting a Big Australia built on immigration numbers. Not race but overwhelming numbers. If another "Cronulla" did break out in Australia it would like be the result of groups taking advantage of bad policy making.

 

It should be remembered Australia is a nation with already 10% of its population either born in or of Asian decent to date. This has passed rapidly from almost nothing when you arrived in 78 to the present time. How many millions in a year must Australia take in to equate the Nauru percentage?

 

Official and controlled immigration, not uncontrolled and illegal immigration, which you seem to want. Just because a nation traditionally accepts immigrants does not mean that there will never be resentment. Again, following your argument, Britons have no right to complain about levels of immigration because Britain has always accepted immigrants. There should be no controls and as the people who live there are themselves the descendants of immigrants, they forfeit any right to complain.

 

And presumably, if only a handful of immigrants arrived in Nauru, the same percentage as Asians to Australia, say, then neither you nor anybody on Nauru would have any cause for complaint.

 

Maybe you are right, though. Look how Britain screwed up the racial balance in Fiji by importing all those Asians. But does that mean that the native Fijans are racist or are they just expressing legimate complaints about British immigration policy when the Brits 'ran' Fiji?

 

But Australia, as you said, has changed its immigration policy to allow in thousands of Asians, (and other races), which is changing the racial balance in Australia. Is that right or wrong?

 

Or is all down to economics and resources and population, so a country with few resources, and a large population relative to landmass, should not upset its racial balance by allowing the wrong sort of immigrants, but a country with a relatively small population and a large land mass, and plenty of resources, MUST allow in people from all over the world?

 

I'm confused. Britain must fall somewhere between Nauru and Australia, with 60 million people in a country 1/32 of the size of Australia. Does that mean that it is right for Britain to restrict immigration but not Australia?

[MARYROSE02]

To a degree - yes.

 

White, normal and average would generally be considered to represent a large majority of the population (aka: Middle Britain).

 

I consider myself to be part of this group.

 

I am white, of course, but my forefathers may have been Norman, at least on my father's side of the family, which is probably something to be ashamed of, considering what the Normans did to Britain, especially to England, invading, conquering, enslaving, taking all the land and riches for themselves (and then having the cheek to celebrate it on a tapestry!)

 

And I know I am abnormal, or at least some of my 'friends' on here tell me so, having compared me to 'swine!'

[PWA200]

If you agree with that statement, then it surely follows that any country would eventually reach a point where the 'native' population will react unfavourably to immigration by people who are 'different?' Which I guess is basically what you are saying about the UK? And if enough people from 'alien' races come to Australia (and some people want unlimited intake as long as they say they are asylum seekers or refugees), then it must happen here too?

 

Again, the oddity about the example of Nauru, if true, is that it is right that the inhabitants of Nauru feel resentment to this influx, but when Brits or Aussies express similar resentment, they are wrong and racist!?

 

 

There may be resistance to immigration in Australia - and if so it will be represented through the ballot box - just as it has been in UK with the rise of UKIP.

 

We have the right, as voters and citizens of a democratic state, to demand the government controls our borders and implements immigration policies that we the people see as reasonable.

 

 

1) We are a democracy.

 

2) There are millions of people who do not agree with our EU membership and its implied open borders policy.

 

3) We should therefore have a vote on the matter.

 

 

The moral decision should not lie within the state - it should lie within the individual - our increasingly statist political elite have stolen this decision from us all by not allowing a referendum.

 

When the policies of the state start to diverge from the beliefs of the people, as they have done increasingly over the subject of immigration, there is bound to be resistance regardless of what country we inhabit.

Edited November 19, 2014 by PWA200

[Parley]

There may be resistance to immigration in Australia - and if so it will be represented through the ballot box - just as it has been in UK with the rise of UKIP.

 

We have the right, as voters and citizens of a democratic state, to demand the government controls our borders and implements immigration policies that we the people see as reasonable.

 

 

1) We are a democracy.

 

2) There are millions of people who do not agree with our EU membership and its implied open borders policy.

 

3) We should therefore have a vote on the matter.

 

 

The moral decision should not lie within the state - it should lie within the individual - our political elite have stolen this decision from us all by not allowing a referendum.

 

When the policies of the state start to diverge from the beliefs of the people, as they have done increasingly over the subject of immigration, there is bound to be resistance regardless of what country we inhabit.

 

 

You are mostly right although you can't expect a referendum on all decisions by government.

The people elect the government and the government are empowered to make decisions for the country.

 

For something that is so large though or a constitutional matter like membership of the EU, I agree a referendum is reasonable in that case.

[flag of convenience]

Official and controlled immigration, not uncontrolled and illegal immigration, which you seem to want. Just because a nation traditionally accepts immigrants does not mean that there will never be resentment. Again, following your argument, Britons have no right to complain about levels of immigration because Britain has always accepted immigrants. There should be no controls and as the people who live there are themselves the descendants of immigrants, they forfeit any right to complain.

 

And presumably, if only a handful of immigrants arrived in Nauru, the same percentage as Asians to Australia, say, then neither you nor anybody on Nauru would have any cause for complaint.

 

Maybe you are right, though. Look how Britain screwed up the racial balance in Fiji by importing all those Asians. But does that mean that the native Fijans are racist or are they just expressing legimate complaints about British immigration policy when the Brits 'ran' Fiji?

 

But Australia, as you said, has changed its immigration policy to allow in thousands of Asians, (and other races), which is changing the racial balance in Australia. Is that right or wrong?

 

Or is all down to economics and resources and population, so a country with few resources, and a large population relative to landmass, should not upset its racial balance by allowing the wrong sort of immigrants, but a country with a relatively small population and a large land mass, and plenty of resources, MUST allow in people from all over the world?

 

I'm confused. Britain must fall somewhere between Nauru and Australia, with 60 million people in a country 1/32 of the size of Australia. Does that mean that it is right for Britain to restrict immigration but not Australia?

 

Once more you are talking out of your hat and repeating with consistency untruths. The more you retell the same untruth doesn't suddenly make it a truism you know? I am on record on this forum and with a degree of consistency, berating both sides of government for their policy of over subscribed immigration numbers as an answer to economic solutions impacting on Australia, especially in recent times with the demise of the resources boom.

 

I don't live any longer in Britain, and have not done so for sometime, as yourself, so though have opinions on the matter, am in no position to pass judgement either way. As with any number of countries within the EU immigration and economic betterment seekers I believe do pose issues that impact especially but far from solely on the working classes of those countries.

 

Nauru as well you know is as close to a failed state as likely to get. It has issues everywhere one looks from extreme health issues and unemployment with little chance of extracting itself from its dire situation. Australia bribed a small nation on its knees with little possibility of refusal to take in its dirty washing and resolve a difficult policy problem, without a lot of consideration or care into future impacts.

 

You mention Fiji. One of a few countries British imported indentured labour for economic reasons with the original inhabitants unwilling to fulfil the role required. Hardly surprising in the long term resentment arises as those hard working imported workers ancestors took on roles of economic dominance and in the case of Fiji, the last straw being political.

 

Nothing of such a nature has occurred to date in either UK or Australia. The Anglo Saxon majority remains dominant in both countries and no challenge to that has ever been remotely on the horizon. Not the same in South East Asia, or Fiji or even parts of East Africa. Your comparison is disingenuous to say the very least.

[flag of convenience]

But following your logic, if I lived on Nauru, I would have every right to resent 'foreigners' coming to live on my island, but expressing the same sentiment in Australia is wrong. Why? Not because there is any less reason for inter-racial conflict, but because Australia has the space and the resources?

 

Well put it this way, if the powers that be in Surry Hills told you that you would be required to house five asylum seekers, and if judged to be refugees, on a permanent basis, in order to continue to be in receipt of welfare payments, you to would likely be none too happy.

[Parley]

How many have been resettled into the Nauru community ?

 

5, 10 ? how many ?

[flag of convenience]

How many have been resettled into the Nauru community ?

 

5, 10 ? how many ?

 

Why don't you search and discover the answer. No one on here is the number cruncher that speaks on behalf of the Nauruan government but I recall when it was something equating 116 ..long since dated.

[Parley]

I'd be surprised if it was that many.

[flag of convenience]

I'd be surprised if it was that many.

 

Which only further underlines the importance of knowing what we are talking about. The latest actual number of those found to be refugees on Nauru stands at something like 261. Clearly with around 1,300 awaiting processing, to which clearly a large number will be found in need of refuge, it is clearly beyond the ability of Nauru.

Australia does and must bare responsibility to the social and additional burden placed on this fragile economy and the seething local anger created.

[MARYROSE02]

How do you see the Nauru experiment ending up Dave?

Proof positive that if you upset the racial balance in a country, then it will inevitably lead to strife. Nauru is just a smaller scale version of what Australia will become if you achieve your dream of unlimited immigration.

[MARYROSE02]

Well put it this way, if the powers that be in Surry Hills told you that you would be required to house five asylum seekers, and if judged to be refugees, on a permanent basis, in order to continue to be in receipt of welfare payments, you to would likely be none too happy.[/quote

 

It depends. If they all gave me their welfare payments, and I deducted a small amount to pay for their upkeep, I could become a slumlord.

 

Presumably, though, every family in Australia could take in at least one asylum seeker, without affecting their income. Why don't we all do it? And the ones who object are all racists anyway.

[MARYROSE02]

Once more you are talking out of your hat and repeating with consistency untruths. The more you retell the same untruth doesn't suddenly make it a truism you know? I am on record on this forum and with a degree of consistency, berating both sides of government for their policy of over subscribed immigration numbers as an answer to economic solutions impacting on Australia, especially in recent times with the demise of the resources boom.

 

I don't live any longer in Britain, and have not done so for sometime, as yourself, so though have opinions on the matter, am in no position to pass judgement either way. As with any number of countries within the EU immigration and economic betterment seekers I believe do pose issues that impact especially but far from solely on the working classes of those countries.

 

Nauru as well you know is as close to a failed state as likely to get. It has issues everywhere one looks from extreme health issues and unemployment with little chance of extracting itself from its dire situation. Australia bribed a small nation on its knees with little possibility of refusal to take in its dirty washing and resolve a difficult policy problem, without a lot of consideration or care into future impacts.

 

You mention Fiji. One of a few countries British imported indentured labour for economic reasons with the original inhabitants unwilling to fulfil the role required. Hardly surprising in the long term resentment arises as those hard working imported workers ancestors took on roles of economic dominance and in the case of Fiji, the last straw being political.

Nothing of such a nature has occurred to date in either UK or Australia. The Anglo Saxon majority remains dominant in both countries and no challenge to that has ever been remotely on the horizon. Not the same in South East Asia, or Fiji or even parts of East Africa. Your comparison is disingenuous to say the very least.

 

Yet!

[MARYROSE02]

From 2001 to 2007, the Nauru detention centre provided a significant source of income for the country. The Nauruan authorities reacted with concern to its closure by Australia.^[71] In February 2008, the Foreign Affairs minister, Dr. Kieren Keke, stated that the closure would result in 100 Nauruans losing their jobs, and would affect 10 per cent of the island's population directly or indirectly: "We have got a huge number of families that are suddenly going to be without any income. We are looking at ways we can try and provide some welfare assistance but our capacity to do that is very limited. Literally we have got a major unemployment crisis in front of us."^[72] The detention centre was re-opened in August 2012.^[52]

[flag of convenience]

Proof positive that if you upset the racial balance in a country, then it will inevitably lead to strife. Nauru is just a smaller scale version of what Australia will become if you achieve your dream of unlimited immigration.

 

Nobody has at anytime called for unlimited migration. In fact I am greatly in favour of scaled back immigration to restore balance in the country and preserve the rights and conditions that stand. What is happening in Nauru has been imposed on it by Australia.

[flag of convenience]

Yet!

 

And it won't as both countries are masters of their destiny. None of the countries mentioned had such a choice. British colonialism imposed outsiders on native populations.

[flag of convenience]

From 2001 to 2007, the Nauru detention centre provided a significant source of income for the country. The Nauruan authorities reacted with concern to its closure by Australia.^[71] In February 2008, the Foreign Affairs minister, Dr. Kieren Keke, stated that the closure would result in 100 Nauruans losing their jobs, and would affect 10 per cent of the island's population directly or indirectly: "We have got a huge number of families that are suddenly going to be without any income. We are looking at ways we can try and provide some welfare assistance but our capacity to do that is very limited. Literally we have got a major unemployment crisis in front of us."^[72] The detention centre was re-opened in August 2012.^[52]

 

There you can see the impact 100 Nauru citizens losing their job had on the economy. As such perhaps you can get your head around the impact the two hundred plus with many more to come will have on the fabric of that islands social cohesion and economy. In a word, Drastic.

[PWA200]

I am not an Australian but personally believe the Nauru detention center is totally justifiable. Most countries run similar institution to the detention center on Nauru - and they are called prisons - where people who are break the law are held. Persons sent to Nauru are generally illegal immigrants - note the word illegal - non-citizens/residents who have unlawfully attempted to enter Australia.

 

It appears many people are confusing the difference between keeping somebody imprisoned on Nauru and allowing them to become a citizen of Nauru. After these people are processed the majority of them become residents of Australia - not Nauru! Nauru is simply a staging post on their journey run by the Australian government.

 

The people held on Nauru ran the risk of being caught - and were - so they now suffer the consequences of their actions. Most of them know they shouldn't be attempting to enter Australia - hence turning up unannounced by sea. Their imprisonment is the result of breaking Australian laws to which they are rightly subject to upon entering Australian territory.

 

The majority of Australians, I believe, want to see controlled borders and restricted immigration and the inevitable result is that a facility such as this will have to exist somewhere whether you like it or not. There may be a more appropriate place - any suggestions?

 

I also believe the facility should be run on an economical basis - as the Australian taxpayers are working and paying for it. It should not be made to be comfortable, and further, should act as a deterrent to others who wish to illegally enter Australia.

 

A problem appears to exist and this is the only practical solution, unless you desire fully open borders and unrestricted immigration.

Edited November 19, 2014 by PWA200

[Wellers and Whitehead]

I am not an Australian but personally believe the Nauru detention center is totally justifiable. Most countries run similar institution to the detention center on Nauru - and they are called prisons - where people who are break the law are held. Persons sent to Nauru are generally illegal immigrants - note the word illegal - non-citizens/residents who have unlawfully attempted to enter Australia.

 

It appears many people are confusing the difference between keeping somebody imprisoned on Nauru and allowing them to become a citizen of Nauru. After these people are processed the majority of them become residents of Australia - not Nauru! Nauru is simply a staging post on their journey run by the Australian government.

 

The people held on Nauru ran the risk of being caught - and were - so they now suffer the consequences of their actions. Most of them know they shouldn't be attempting to enter Australia - hence turning up unannounced by sea. Their imprisonment is the result of breaking Australian laws to which they are rightly subject to upon entering Australian territory.

 

The majority of Australians, I believe, want to see controlled borders and restricted immigration and the inevitable result is that a facility such as this will have to exist somewhere whether you like it or not. There may be a more appropriate place - any suggestions?

 

I also believe the facility should be run on an economical basis - as the Australian taxpayers are working and paying for it. It should not be made to be comfortable, and further, should act as a deterrent to others who wish to illegally enter Australia.

 

A problem appears to exist and this is the only practical solution, unless you desire fully open borders and unrestricted immigration.

 

If I were you I would start from page 1 of this thread and it will help you understand that asylum seekers are not 'illegals'.

[MARYROSE02]

If I were you I would start from page 1 of this thread and it will help you understand that asylum seekers are not 'illegals'.

 

If they are 'genuine' asylum seekers, yes, but in the case of the ones who pay for passage by boats owned and run by 'people smugglers', we don't know if they are really fleeing oppression, or just economic migrants trying to 'jump the queue.' Hence the need to control our borders, unless you want an open-borders policy where anybody and everybody who calls themselves an asylum seeker should be allowed into Australia.

 

Either the Australian government decides who comes into our country, or we drop all controls and let everybody in. There is no middle way.

[MARYROSE02]

Naturally, the above does not affect Australia's official refugee intake.

[Harpodom]

I am not an Australian but personally believe the Nauru detention center is totally justifiable. Most countries run similar institution to the detention center on Nauru - and they are called prisons - where people who are break the law are held. Persons sent to Nauru are generally illegal immigrants - note the word illegal - non-citizens/residents who have unlawfully attempted to enter Australia.

 

It appears many people are confusing the difference between keeping somebody imprisoned on Nauru and allowing them to become a citizen of Nauru. After these people are processed the majority of them become residents of Australia - not Nauru! Nauru is simply a staging post on their journey run by the Australian government.

 

The people held on Nauru ran the risk of being caught - and were - so they now suffer the consequences of their actions. Most of them know they shouldn't be attempting to enter Australia - hence turning up unannounced by sea. Their imprisonment is the result of breaking Australian laws to which they are rightly subject to upon entering Australian territory.

 

The majority of Australians, I believe, want to see controlled borders and restricted immigration and the inevitable result is that a facility such as this will have to exist somewhere whether you like it or not. There may be a more appropriate place - any suggestions?

 

I also believe the facility should be run on an economical basis - as the Australian taxpayers are working and paying for it. It should not be made to be comfortable, and further, should act as a deterrent to others who wish to illegally enter Australia.

 

A problem appears to exist and this is the only practical solution, unless you desire fully open borders and unrestricted immigration.

 

 

Note they haven't been charged or sentenced with any crime, because they haven't committed a crime

 

Seeking asylum is perfectly legal.

 

The fact that the politicians and media have consorted with each other to peddle this lie to such an extent that people like you accept it as fact says a lot IMO.

 

Anyway, using your argument that they are 'illegal', when do they get their day in court? What's their 'sentence'? Is indefinite detention of children acceptable to you?

Edited November 19, 2014 by calNgary
removed personal comment

[Harpodom]

If they are 'genuine' asylum seekers, yes, but in the case of the ones who pay for passage by boats owned and run by 'people smugglers', we don't know if they are really fleeing oppression, or just economic migrants trying to 'jump the queue.' Hence the need to control our borders, unless you want an open-borders policy where anybody and everybody who calls themselves an asylum seeker should be allowed into Australia.

 

Either the Australian government decides who comes into our country, or we drop all controls and let everybody in. There is no middle way.

And yet you conveniently ignore the fact that historically 90% of boat people are found to be genuine refugees.

 

Which makes you ignorant doesn't it?

 

Did you answer my question about how the Nauru social experiment will end?