PDA

View Full Version : Do you think the US should take Australia's middel east Refugees?



genglandoh
02-02-2017, 10:35 AM
Australia has decided not to allow refugees into its country from the middle east.
Instead then they are caught offshore the get dumped into detention centers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
These countries are tired of taking in refugees for Australia.
So Obama in Nov 2016 made a deal with Australia to resettle 1,250 of them in the US.

How that Trump is the President he is calling this a very dumb deal and is looking into it.

I think Australia should deal with their own refugees and not keep dumping them on others.

Title: US-Australia refugee deal: Trump in 'worst call' with Turnbull
Australia has controversially refused to accept the refugees - most of whom are men from Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq - and instead holds them in offshore detention centres on the Pacific nations of Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-38837263

Title: US to take Australia asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island
Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-37965528

Phillip Allen
02-02-2017, 10:38 AM
no shame

Norman Bernstein
02-02-2017, 10:56 AM
For the background on who these refugees are, and why there was a deal to accept some of them, see here:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/australia-us-refugee-deal-turnbull-trump/

Why did Obama agree to accept them?

It's called 'Humanitarianism'... a concept foreign to Donald Trump. It's the right, and moral thing to do... and for 200 years, we have been made stronger, as a nation, by immigrants.

genglandoh
02-02-2017, 11:06 AM
For the background on who these refugees are, and why there was a deal to accept some of them, see here:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/australia-us-refugee-deal-turnbull-trump/

Why did Obama agree to accept them?

It's called 'Humanitarianism'... a concept foreign to Donald Trump. It's the right, and moral thing to do... and for 200 years, we have been made stronger, as a nation, by immigrants.

The bigger question is why does Australia refuse to accept them and dump them on other countries?

Keith Wilson
02-02-2017, 11:09 AM
What do you say about those who would condemn others to misery and death to make themselves feel safer (not actually be safer)? I can think of several words, none of them complementary.

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

http://gnosticwarrior.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Symbols-statue-of-liberty-sunrise.jpg

Norman Bernstein
02-02-2017, 12:10 PM
The bigger question is why does Australia refuse to accept them and dump them on other countries?

Because unlike America, Australia doesn't have a tradition of immigration.... at least, not of the immigration of people from places like Syria, etc.

It is what makes America unique. MANY countries around the world are sociologically incapable of admitting refugees, or immigrants of different cultures. Conversely, immigration is the best thing that ever happened to the United States... this country was BUILT on immigrants... from the railroads built by Chinese in the West, to the intensely patriotic immigrants that have managed to come here in recent years.

Immigrants, by and large, rapidly become self-sufficient and contribute greatly to the overall economy AND the culture of this country.

Think about it, the next time you dip into some hummus, or eat some veal parmigiana... it's not just the food, however... it's so many OTHER things that enrichen our lives, by virtue of accepting other cultures, while those other cultures accept some of ours.

Nicholas Scheuer
02-02-2017, 12:13 PM
Yes.

Paul Pless
02-02-2017, 12:16 PM
oh man, genglandoh trolling up the bigfella
can't wait to see how this one goes
btw its not just refegees from the middle east that australia sends to offshore detention camps* its pretty much all their refugees that they send there - but they're not responsible for these camps, the conditions of the camps, etc, the health and welfare of these camps, etc. etc.

Paul Pless
02-02-2017, 12:17 PM
sociologically incapableyes that describes the oz right

LeeG
02-02-2017, 12:20 PM
Yes, yes, lets steal they're refugees like Iraqi oil, ours, ours, all ours HAHAHAHAHAH!

Peerie Maa
02-02-2017, 12:22 PM
btw its not just refegees from the middle east that australia sends to offshore detention camps* its pretty much all their refugees that they send there - but they're not responsible for these camps, the conditions of the camps, etc, the health and welfare of these camps, etc. etc.

That reminds me of something.
Wait I'll get it in a minute. Begins with "G".

;)

birlinn
02-02-2017, 02:02 PM
Gest... or Guan...?

seanz
02-02-2017, 02:05 PM
Cheers Geng, i needed a laugh.

Norman was priceless.

Because unlike America, Australia doesn't have a tradition of immigration.... at least, not of the immigration of people from places like Syria, etc.

Immigrants from places like Syria? Such as, Lebanon? Or Turkey? Or Jordan? Or, I dunno, Syria? Australia has them.


That reminds me of something.
Wait I'll get it in a minute. Begins with "G".

;)

Or K?

David G
02-02-2017, 02:08 PM
OK... I'll bite -- wassa 'middel east'? Is that something like a muddle? Or more like a dingle?

seanz
02-02-2017, 02:16 PM
OK... I'll bite -- wassa 'middel east'? Is that something like a muddle? Or more like a dingle?




I googled middel...it means 'means'....how charm



i also found this.....



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS6rBBtXFkg

Norman Bernstein
02-02-2017, 02:32 PM
Norman was priceless.
Immigrants from places like Syria? Such as, Lebanon? Or Turkey? Or Jordan? Or, I dunno, Syria? Australia has them.


Australia's population ancestry is 65.2% from English speaking countries: England, Ireland, Scotland. 15.8% are aborigines. The remaining 19% are largely German, Italian, Indian, Greek, and Dutch... but less than 3.3% each... meaning that Middle Eastern inhabitants are a VERY small minority, not big enough to appear on the chart.

In the US, conversely, there's overwhelmingly more ancestral diversity. Interestingly, the #1 ancestry for Americans is German (over 42 million people)... 24 million people list 'African' as their ancestry, but that also encompasses many Muslims from places like Somalia, Ethiopia, etc. There's a list of 25 top ancestral connections available at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762137.html.

Peerie Maa
02-02-2017, 02:40 PM
Australia's population ancestry is 65.2% from English speaking countries: England, Ireland, Scotland. 15.8% are aborigines. The remaining 19% are largely German, Italian, Indian, Greek, and Dutch... but less than 3.3% each... meaning that Middle Eastern inhabitants are a VERY small minority, not big enough to appear on the chart.

In the US, conversely, there's overwhelmingly more ancestral diversity. Interestingly, the #1 ancestry for Americans is German (over 42 million people)... 24 million people list 'African' as their ancestry, but that also encompasses many Muslims from places like Somalia, Ethiopia, etc. There's a list of 25 top ancestral connections available at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762137.html.

As late as 1936 they were using a controversial Test
The dictation test came into disrepute when it began to be used to exclude and deport individuals which the government considered undesirable.
Jewish political activist Egon Kisch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Kisch) from Czechoslovakia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia), who was exiled (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile) from Germany for opposing Nazism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism), arrived in Australia in 1934. The Government of Joseph Lyons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lyons) went to extraordinary lengths to exclude Kisch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_exclusion_of_Egon_Kisch_from_Australia), including using the dictation test. Kisch was fluent in a number of European languages, and after completing passages in several languages, he finally failed when he was tested in Scottish Gaelic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic_language). The officer who tested him had grown up in northern Scotland, and did not have a particularly good grasp of Scottish Gaelic himself. In the High Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Australia) case of R v Wilson; ex parte Kisch the court found that Scottish Gaelic was not within the fair meaning of the Act, and overturned Kisch's convictions for being an illegal immigrant. The failure to exclude Kisch brought the dictation test into widespread public ridicule.
In 1936, the dictation test was controversially used again to exclude Mabel Freer, a white British woman born in India. She was twice set the test in Italian, which she failed. In the face of a long press and legal campaign for her admission, the government was unable or unwilling to provide a convincing reason for her exclusion and eventually she was admitted, welcomed by a huge crowd at the quay in Sydney. Interior Minister (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Home_Affairs_%28Australia%29) Thomas Paterson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paterson) resigned from the Lyons Cabinet in 1937 as a result of the controversy.

to limit immigration.

seanz
02-02-2017, 02:41 PM
Norman, most of those Africans? That wasn't immigration.

Norman Bernstein
02-02-2017, 02:42 PM
Norman, most of those Africans? That wasn't immigration.

True enough.

seanz
02-02-2017, 02:53 PM
As late as 1936 they were using a controversial Test to limit immigration.


As late as? what's your context? 80 years ago? 30 years after federation? 140 years after the British showed up with troops, convicts and a handful of 'settlers'?

Or should that just be "in 1936"?

Sky Blue
02-02-2017, 02:54 PM
the next time you dip into some hummus, or eat some veal parmigiana... it's not just the food, however... it's so many OTHER things that enrichen our lives.

Well, for so many, let's admit that it pretty much is just the food. Not that there's anything wrong with that. To the contrary. Who wants to sit in a room with a bunch of douches that all look and think alike and can't cook a chicken right? But tell us about some of these OTHER things. I'm interested to hear about that. TomF and I had a discussion about it a couple of weeks ago, but I don't recall anyone else really chiming in on it.

Diversity for diversity's sake, diversity just so white people today can feel a little more comfortable with the crimes of their ancestors, diversity as reinforcing white privilege, the unthinking Maoist compulsion to "celebrate it," the requirement that it cannot be questioned in any manner, for any reason, including forbidden questions as to why certain groups are coming, and their relative ability, desire and commitment to assimilate themselves to the larger whole, to adopt the values of the larger culture, to not bring their grievances from back home to their new land, well, these are important considerations, imho. Even if I do like my hot curries.

David G
02-02-2017, 02:57 PM
Norman, most of those Africans? That wasn't immigration.

Only after a fashion. 'Forced Immigration'???

genglandoh
02-02-2017, 02:59 PM
Because unlike America, Australia doesn't have a tradition of immigration.... at least, not of the immigration of people from places like Syria, etc.

It is what makes America unique. MANY countries around the world are sociologically incapable of admitting refugees, or immigrants of different cultures. Conversely, immigration is the best thing that ever happened to the United States... this country was BUILT on immigrants... from the railroads built by Chinese in the West, to the intensely patriotic immigrants that have managed to come here in recent years.

Immigrants, by and large, rapidly become self-sufficient and contribute greatly to the overall economy AND the culture of this country.

Think about it, the next time you dip into some hummus, or eat some veal parmigiana... it's not just the food, however... it's so many OTHER things that enrichen our lives, by virtue of accepting other cultures, while those other cultures accept some of ours.

LOL.
I think the native people of Australia would disagree with you.
The Native Population of Australia is only 3% of the total.

Norman Bernstein
02-02-2017, 03:09 PM
Well, for so many, let's admit that it pretty much is just the food.

No, it's not.


But tell us about some of these OTHER things. I'm interested to hear about that. TomF and I had a discussion about it a couple of weeks ago, but I don't recall anyone else really chiming in on it.

There are countless things. Italians, for example, brought remarkable and amazing skills as stonemasons and builders. Many Jewish immigrants were peasants (for example, my own great grandfather), but others were highly educated and brought much philosophy and literature. Countless others were artists, writers, businessmen... the list goes on and on. Dismissing immigrants as having not contributed to the culture of this country is pure ignorance.


Diversity for diversity's sake, diversity just so white people today can feel a little more comfortable with the crimes of their ancestors, diversity as reinforcing white privilege, the unthinking Maoist compulsion to "celebrate it," the requirement that it cannot be questioned in any manner, for any reason, including forbidden questions as to why certain groups are coming, and their relative ability, desire and commitment to assimilate themselves to the larger whole, to adopt the values of the larger culture, to not bring their grievances from back home to their new land, well, these are important considerations, imho. Even if I do like my hot curries.

And you think that immigrants came here without a genuine desire to assimilate... and holding onto their cultural roots is something worthy of disparagement? Bite into your Egg McMuffin and reflect on the cultural preservation of an English cultural icon... does it make them somehow more 'American'?

The descendants of my great grandfather, who was a shopkeeper in the village of Ruhkovo, near Misnk, number well over 460, last time I looked (15 years ago)... the number, I'm sure, is nearing 600 now..... neither he, nor HIS children, ever learned to read and write English, although they were hardly illiterate... the read, wrote, and spoke Yiddish, a real language. Out of those 460, there are doctors, dentists, engineers, lawyers, businessmen, a few artists, many teachers...

...they ALL made contributions to this country.

You can dismiss the support of immigration as your boneheaded meme about 'virtue signalling', if you like.... but it's BS. Immigrants built this country... and they're still doing it.

Norman Bernstein
02-02-2017, 03:10 PM
LOL.
I think the native people of Australia would disagree with you.
The Native Population of Australia is only 3% of the total.

Actually, 18.5%.

Sky Blue
02-02-2017, 03:13 PM
it's not the food

That was your preeminent example! You brought it up!

C'mon, Norman.

seanz
02-02-2017, 03:16 PM
Multiculturalism = Maoism...this, and other alternative facts...


And another thing, Norman. Trying to disprove/deny one country's history of immigration diversity with statistics about another country's ethnic diversity is "mildly disingenuous".

Norman Bernstein
02-02-2017, 03:26 PM
And another thing, Norman. Trying to disprove/deny one country's history of immigration diversity with statistics about another country's ethnic diversity is "mildly disingenuous".

They are statistics, right? They are what they are.... you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.

The Bigfella
02-02-2017, 03:29 PM
Actually, 18.5%.

Rubbish.

3.0% in 2011 according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The 2016 Census results will be out soon.... but they won't have suddenly discovered your fanciful extra 15.5%

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3238.0.55.001

The rest of the thread is littered with similar rubbishy comments. Australia operates one of the world's most generous humanitarian refugee resettlement programs. The people on Nauru and Manus Island are folks who paid people smugglers to get them to Australia. Our previous Trotskyite government (Labor and the scumbag Greens) had dismantled border protection measures that had stopped the illegal boat traffic. 50,000 people showed up in boats over a few short years.... with a 2% deaths at sea rate... ie thousands of deaths. So, the new centralist (Liberal) government advised that anyone attempting illegal boat entry would not set foot on Australia. This deal is part of that program that has stopped the deaths at sea.

Australia continues to accept humanitarian refugees, recently adding another 12,000 Syrians on top of our increasing (from 14,000 to 18,000 and more) resettlement program.

So... we do take refugees (second most generous nation in the world on per capita resettlements), we don't tolerate deaths at sea.... and, we are certainly a more tolerant multicultural nation than most.

seanz
02-02-2017, 03:30 PM
They are statistics, right? They are what they are.... you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.

I did. But my conclusions weren't about the statistics.

The Bigfella
02-02-2017, 03:30 PM
They are statistics, right? They are what they are.... you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.

Nope.

They aren't statistics. They are demonstrably false numbers.

Norman Bernstein
02-02-2017, 03:34 PM
Rubbish.

3.0% in 2011 according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The 2016 Census results will be out soon.... but they won't have suddenly discovered your fanciful extra 15.5%

My apologies. My source describe the stat as 'other (including aboriginal), so it's not just aboriginal. It IS true, that the 'other' constitute less than 3.3% each, since the chart shows Germany, Italy, etc. as independent columns... so Syrians, for example, would be well under that number.

skuthorp
02-02-2017, 03:43 PM
No Geng, I don't. At this stage and allowing for our disgraceful treatment of them in a virtual Gitmo, regardless of their origin and reasons for being there we own them and should deal with them. However due to years of demonisation by both political majors and the yellow press the major party's positions are supported by the majority of the voters.
Which begs the question of course.

Sky Blue
02-02-2017, 03:50 PM
No one has articulated why Trump is wrong to question this. If Australia will not accept these people for admission, why on earth should America accept them? And don't give me the pap about it being "the right thing to do."

If it is the right thing for the US to do, why isn't it the right thing for OZ? They were traveling there, for crissakes.

Trump is right to question this. The fate of these people is properly a question for the Australian government.

skuthorp
02-02-2017, 03:53 PM
I don't agree with you much SB, but I agree on this one.

seanz
02-02-2017, 03:55 PM
No Geng, I don't. At this stage and allowing for our disgraceful treatment of them in a virtual Gitmo, regardless of their origin and reasons for being there we own them and should deal with them. However due to years of demonisation by both political majors and the yellow press the major party's positions are supported by the majority of the voters.
Which begs the question of course.

Australia owns the problem of the mistreatment of these refugees, not the refugees themselves. This misconception may be part of the problem.

seanz
02-02-2017, 03:57 PM
No one has articulated why Trump is wrong to question this. If Australia will not accept these people for admission, why on earth should America accept them? And don't give me the pap about it being "the right thing to do."

If it is the right thing for the US to do, why isn't it the right thing for OZ? They were traveling there, for crissakes.

Trump is right to question this. The fate of these people is properly a question for the Australian government.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while....

skuthorp
02-02-2017, 04:00 PM
In the circumstances one follows the other seanz. The legal fiction of the camps being the responsibility of 'sovereign governments' make them ours.

seanz
02-02-2017, 04:03 PM
In the circumstances one follows the other seanz. The legal fiction of the camps being the responsibility of 'sovereign governments' make them ours.

I'd agree that legislation about individuals in these circumstances should make them an Australian government responsibility and therefore subject to all rights and protections etc.

The Bigfella
02-02-2017, 06:52 PM
I'd agree that legislation about individuals in these circumstances should make them an Australian government responsibility and therefore subject to all rights and protections etc.

Why?

They have never been to Australia, never will

The Bigfella
02-02-2017, 06:53 PM
No one has articulated why Trump is wrong to question this. If Australia will not accept these people for admission, why on earth should America accept them? And don't give me the pap about it being "the right thing to do."

If it is the right thing for the US to do, why isn't it the right thing for OZ? They were traveling there, for crissakes.

Trump is right to question this. The fate of these people is properly a question for the Australian government.

I believe that Australia is taking some who tried to get into the USA too.

Bernadette
02-02-2017, 07:01 PM
i am so glad we have a massive body of water surrounding our patch of turf. otherwise we would have been inundated by now and the questions being asked would be a lot different (sans the warm fuzzy mumbo jumbo rubbish).

seanz
02-02-2017, 07:05 PM
Girt by sea, keeping Australia safe for over 200 years.

bamamick
02-02-2017, 07:52 PM
Yes, if that is what we promised we'd do.

I am not anti-immigrant so I would have said take them no matter what, but if we agreed to do this and it needs doing we should not walk away angering one of our strongest and oldest friends in the world.

Mickey Lake

Sky Blue
02-02-2017, 08:02 PM
take them no matter what

This sort of "take them no matter what" pie-in-the-skyism is where it all falls apart for me. Germany is experiencing this problem as their post-war domestic consensus breaks down over these questions. Hey, let them flood right on in, irrespective of whether they can care for themselves, whether there are jobs for them, how the numbers may impact those already here.

How many? Whoever wants to come? Refugee? Migrant? Economic migrant? Male/female proportionality? We already have 15 or so million persons unlawfully present here. Shouldn't we address their status before we just willy-nilly add more people?

Never in American history has there been a "take them no matter what" approach to immigration, and to ask fair questions about the process is not to be anti-immigrant.

bamamick
02-02-2017, 08:27 PM
I am talking about 1250 people who fled the most horrific genocide of our times. So yes, no matter what. These are families with children who lives were destroyed by something they could do nothing to stop.

I AM a bleeding heart when it comes to this stuff. I work with a brilliant young man whose father was kidnapped and murdered in Iraq because his views on the Koran (old spelling, I know. I am getting pretty old) differed from some folks. This man was a chemist and an intellectual, whose wife and children were lucky enough to find sponsors to get them to Huntsville, Alabama, where my friend has grown up to be a fine young man. With the help of some good people his family has hope. Without that help what would have happened to him? To his mother and sisters, if they had stayed in northern Iraq?

So yeah, I say take them no matter what. I pay taxes for a lot of stuff I really don't want. I don't mind that money going for this.

Mickey Lake

Phil Y
02-02-2017, 09:31 PM
Australia's position on these refugees is appalling. Yes there's an argument that we have to be tough to stop desperate people coming here in leaky boats, which frequently don't make it. And yes, we do have a front door with a carefully managed refugee intake. But it's the old question of whether the ends justifies the means, and the correct answer, where the means are unconscionable, is always an emphatic NO.

RFNK
02-03-2017, 04:38 PM
Absolutely. I hope I never become such a coward that I'm too frightened to help people fleeing horror.

Rick

RFNK
02-03-2017, 04:46 PM
And for the record, I agree with Trump - it's a dumb deal. I doubt I will ever agree with him on anything again. Our PM's weakness is matched by the POTUS' petulance. How demeaning for us all.

Rick

PeterSibley
02-03-2017, 04:59 PM
I don't agree with you much SB, but I agree on this one.


And for the record, I agree with Trump - it's a dumb deal. I doubt I will ever agree with him on anything again. Our PM's weakness is matched by the POTUS' petulance. How demeaning for us all.

Rick

Australia's response to refugees seeking our sanctuary is appalling. We are signatories to the Refugee Convention but refuse to honour it.

Norman Bernstein
02-03-2017, 05:09 PM
This sort of "take them no matter what" pie-in-the-skyism is where it all falls apart for me. Germany is experiencing this problem as their post-war domestic consensus breaks down over these questions. Hey, let them flood right on in, irrespective of whether they can care for themselves, whether there are jobs for them, how the numbers may impact those already here.

How many? Whoever wants to come? Refugee? Migrant? Economic migrant? Male/female proportionality? We already have 15 or so million persons unlawfully present here. .

Gee, on the campaign trail, it was only 11 million.

So, this week, it's 15 million?

Next week, I bet it will be 18-20 million! :):):)

Peerie Maa
02-03-2017, 05:19 PM
Why?

They have never been to Australia, never will

That is the Guantanamo Bay fiction.