Australian police say they prevented bombings on Christmas

[optad]

10 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Australia is not obliged to accept refugees submitted for relocation by UNHCR. Some facts & figures on Australia’s recent refugee and humanitarian intake.

Thanks for the link. Past practice and the government's desire to be a good global citizen has put a virtual obligation of refugees from disrupted areas under UN auspices. In particular where Australia has armed forces also active in that region. THis has been true of humanitarian priorities historically. I note the caveat in that link which says not all refugees are accepted, however each year the full allocation is filled with foreign policy and  severity in mind.

 

Also, UNHCR has been a long standing prefered method of filling that quota as immmgration consistency and numbers atest in strife affected zones.

 

 

 

[halloween]

22 hours ago, optad said:

One of the most common and spurious arguments raised by the ill informed on this topic: Muslims and immigration to Australia.

 

Australia is a signatory to the UNHCR. As a result we have international commitments beyond the politics and rhetoric in canberra. Beyond your vote's influence re policy. This is how Australia can justify the turn back boats policy from international pressure. Come to australia, apply through the international channels. IOM and UNHCR being the most typical.

 

We also have immigration quotas which are always filled in various categories. Humanitarian and asylum taxonomies are relevant here and around 15000 before the added 12000 from syria.  Between the IOM and UNHCR, these refugees are allocated to us from abroad. There is no real choice here, like the sub-saharans who have little organic connection to Australia,  other than changing the quotas or as Tony Abbott tried to separate the Syrian Christians and from the Syrian Muslims. Immediate court action was in the wind. And ironically most of the refugees from Syria in that 11000 are are actually christian any way. 

 

Even if you refine your argument to family reunification visas and you will still find yourself facing other legal problems.

 

'Remaining contemporary' as a framework for seeing things requires constructive consideration on new problems. Not moaning to other generationally tired beings. 

 

"Beyond your vote's influence re policy" Is that a polite way of saying despite the wishes of the people of Australia? And I suppose "the ill-informed on this topic" would have to be you, now that your misconceptions have been repudiated.

Edited December 24, 2016 by halloween

[optad]

12 hours ago, halloween said:

 

"Beyond your vote's influence re policy" Is that a polite way of saying despite the wishes of the people of Australia? And I suppose "the ill-informed on this topic" would have to be you, now that your misconceptions have been repudiated.

Nice thing to engage upon, early Xmas day. 

 

Rubbish. I stated we have 'commitments' to the UnHCR program and consistently we have fulfilled those. In terms of 'obligations', you can debate the conventional adherence to a program which formally has it beginnings in the years after Fraser took so many boats people into australia directly and not deviated according to taste, or the vagaries of the populist vote such as yours. Our reliance on that program is cemented by bi partisan support to turn back boats. It is something that has never been policy differentiated. I cannot ever recall partisan distinction to garner your vote for discretionary departmental immigration bias. Only Hansen has campaigned on this topic. Vote for her if you feel so strongly. 

 

The 'ill informed' lament the above and want what they project, a different country other than the evolving one. Emotive arguments does not deal with the pragmatics of the populace base we have evolving, like it or not, nor immigration requirements for growth, nor foreign policy misadventures. It becomes, simply, the whence they came from.  

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

On 12/23/2016 at 1:41 PM, Trentham said:

Your "all seeing eye" is shut I think. When Christians were killing each other in Ireland did you brand Christianity a religion of non-peace? Isis is just the Muslim version of Christianity's Klu Klux Klan. Perhaps SOME of the women wear the veil. So What? I was brought up in the Anglican Church and as an altar boy I has to wear a dress. Do you actually know any Muslims or do you just read and listen to all the ultra right creeps spouting their propaganda? They would do the same as Isis is if they could. My doctor is a Muslim as is my pharmacist and one of my close friends. They are all beautiful people. I don't hear you complaining about what the Buddhists are doing to the Muslims in Myanmar. Do you claim Buddhism to be a religion of violence too? Grow up and think for yourself. Nearly all of the violence being perpetrated now by "so called" Muslims is on other Muslims. Use your all seeing eye to discover the truth.

Actually, I think ALL religion is stupid. I was just commenting on this particular incident. I do not see any religion that is not corrupt and used for the sole purpose of controlling people and/or bilking them of their hard earned money with the promise of eternal salvation.

 

Every religion's first rule is not to kill yet they all kill in the name of their own "one true religion"

 

As for Buddhism, we may not see the same kind of violence from them but if you read the news at all you will see almost daily examples of the extreme greed and corruption that you will see from all other religions, and if you think that Thai buddhists for example, are not violent, then you really need to open your eyes.

[halloween]

On 25/12/2016 at 8:50 PM, optad said:

Nice thing to engage upon, early Xmas day. 

 

Rubbish. I stated we have 'commitments' to the UnHCR program and consistently we have fulfilled those. In terms of 'obligations', you can debate the conventional adherence to a program which formally has it beginnings in the years after Fraser took so many boats people into australia directly and not deviated according to taste, or the vagaries of the populist vote such as yours. Our reliance on that program is cemented by bi partisan support to turn back boats. It is something that has never been policy differentiated. I cannot ever recall partisan distinction to garner your vote for discretionary departmental immigration bias. Only Hansen has campaigned on this topic. Vote for her if you feel so strongly. 

 

The 'ill informed' lament the above and want what they project, a different country other than the evolving one. Emotive arguments does not deal with the pragmatics of the populace base we have evolving, like it or not, nor immigration requirements for growth, nor foreign policy misadventures. It becomes, simply, the whence they came from.  

I couldn't give a toss about " the whence they came from" I am more concerned about the religion they practise and which they inflict on their children, and the views of others inherent in that religion. Other countries have suffered severe repercussions from allowing muslim immigration, and oz is paying a high price now with low numbers, estimated at 500,000. How much is each of those immigrants costing us in monitoringand terrorism suppression, over and above the normal cost of non-muslim integration?

Right wing opposition will gain momentum as further attacks occur or are foiled, as it is in Europe now. Hopefully Trump, almost as repugnant to me as Hanson, will be the first to ban muslim migration, letting those who practise it know their is a cost for the radicalism they engender,  and others will follow. A plebiscite here could resolve the issue and give weak-kneed politicians the excuse to act. Do you honestly think it would fail?

BTW abandoning all refugee immigration would be a great way to stop the economic migrants who abuse it. Use the money saved to set up safe haven camps in or near their own country.