Immigration

onelongsong

Let's say I break into your house
>
> A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials
> In ages!!! It explains things better than all
> The baloney you hear on TV.
>
> Her point:
>
> Recently large demonstrations have taken place
> Across the country protesting the fact that Congress
> Is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
>
> Certain people are angry that
> The US might protect its own
> Borders, might make it harder
> To sneak into this country and,
> Once here, to stay indefinitely.
>
> Let me see if I correctly understand
> The thinking behind these protests.
> Let's say I break into your house.
> Let's say that when you discover
> Me in your house, you insist that I leave.
>
> But I say, "I've made all
> The beds and washed the
> Dishes and did the laundry
> And swept the floors. I've
> Done all the things you don't
> Like to do. I'm hard-working
> And honest
> (except for when I broke into your house) .
>
> According to the protesters:
>
> You are Required to let me stay in your house
> You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
> You are Required to Educate my kids
> You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
>
> (my husband will do all of your yard work because
> He is also hard-working and honest, except for that
> Breaking in part).
>
> If you try to call the police or force me out,
> I will call my friends who will picket your
> House carrying signs that proclaim my
> RIGHT to be there.
>
>
> It's only fair, after all, because you have
> A nicer house than I do, and I'm just
> Trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working
> And honest, person, except for well,
> You know, I did break into your house
>
> And what a deal it is for me!!!
>
> I live in your house, contributing only a
> Fraction of the cost of my keep, and
> There is nothing you can do about it
> Without being accused of cold,
> Uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and
> Bigoted behavior.
>
> Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you to learn
> MY LANGUAGE!!! So you can
> Communicate with me.
>
> Why can't people see how ridiculous
> This is?! Only in America .
> If you agree, pass it on (in English ).
> Share it if you see the value of it.
>
> If not blow it off.........
> Along with your future Social Security funds and a lot of other things.

Jeanie

Never thought of it like that ols.

Of course things are different here. You don't get to "stay" in "my house" here. You and your kids get locked up in detention in the middle of a scorching desert, with razor wire all around you, and you wait. You wait for the department of immigration to check your papers, or to identify you and process your claim. And that could take YEARS.

Bu2

and then touched my bed, I would've called the cops.

Jeanie

Bu2 wrote:

and then touched my bed, I would've called the cops.

:eek: Bloody hell bu!! That sounds icky!!! I'd like to think there'd be a lot of screaming and yelling and fisty cuffing before I managed to call the cops but who the hell knows what they'd do in that situation till they're in it!
Just hope neither of us ever is!

Bu2

I'd never hire someone to take care of my house, especially if I don't know where they came from.

catefrances

big difference between the house i own and the country i don't own.

Jeanie

Bu2 wrote:

I'd never hire someone to take care of my house, especially if I don't know where they came from.

I couldn't stand having someone take care of my house!

I'd spend my whole life trying to get it tidy before they came in to clean. :eek:

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

big difference between the house i own and the country i don't own.

True cate.

Just can understand how people would be concerned about the influx of illegal immigrants if it affects the infrastructure of a country that you are contributing financially to the upkeep of. Not saying one way or the other what the solution is and obviously I would always want the welfare of the people to be the priority but one does have to wonder how immigration can ever be truly fair and reasonable for all. Those seeking a new life and those paying for the place that they are immigrating to.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

True cate.

Just can understand how people would be concerned about the influx of illegal immigrants if it affects the infrastructure of a country that you are contributing financially to the upkeep of. Not saying one way or the other what the solution is and obviously I would always want the welfare of the people to be the priority but one does have to wonder how immigration can ever be truly fair and reasonable for all. Those seeking a new life and those paying for the place that they are immigrating to.

immigration can never be truly fair when we assign different criteria to supposed illegals when we ourselves gained countries through suspect means.

jamjam

if someone broke into my house
all hell would break loose
plus there's a lot of cops patrolling my neighbourhood now.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

immigration can never be truly fair when we assign different criteria to supposed illegals when we ourselves gained countries through suspect means.

Our immigration laws are not fair cate.

The issue of how we came to have gained this country is such a complex one and seemingly without answer. I don't believe I'm responsible for how we came to be here in Australia. The Irish and the poverty class of England were starved out of their own countries. People did what they could to survive and luckily some of my ancestors were those people that immigrated here. I realize that the aborigines suffered for this. But not at my hands. Or my parents or my grandparents and probably not even my great grand parents. I realize that so many of those poor people that attempt to gain access to Australia via the boats now are simply doing the same thing, fleeing persecution, attempting to protect their families. We need solutions as to how to best manage this situation in the most humane and fair way possible.
The situation that most of us find our selves in now when it comes to this issue is that it is still dictated to us by the government of the day. Just as it was back then. As Australians we need to find some agreement and stand up for what is right.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

Our immigration laws are not fair cate.

The issue of how we came to have gained this country is such a complex one and seemingly without answer. I don't believe I'm responsible for how we came to be here in Australia. The Irish and the poverty class of England were starved out of their own countries. People did what they could to survive and luckily some of my ancestors were those people that immigrated here. I realize that the aborigines suffered for this. But not at my hands. Or my parents or my grandparents and probably not even my great grand parents. I realize that so many of those poor people that attempt to gain access to Australia via the boats now are simply doing the same thing, fleeing persecution, attempting to protect their families. We need solutions as to how to best manage this situation in the most humane and fair way possible.
The situation that most of us find our selves in now when it comes to this issue is that it is still dictated to us by the government of the day. Just as it was back then. As Australians we need to find some agreement and stand up for what is right.

it's not that complex jeanie. not really. on august 22nd 1770, captain cook took possession of the entire eastern seaboard of our country in the name of king george III under the law of terra nullius. this law assumed the land to be empty. we know the land was not empty and cook knew it too. natives were observed. what was not observed however was an infrastructure familar to europeans. so with no visible signs of a 'civilised' society as defined eurocentically, cook claimed the land.
i don't feel responsible either for what was done to dispossess the indigenous population. but i can certainly acknowledge that the white man was wrong. as he always is in cases where he wiped aside thousands of years of indigenous settlement in the name of a supposed superior civilisation because what he saw was foreign to what he was used to.
in this age of globalisation when we are so eager to accept the outsourcing of industry for the almighty dollar we must also see that human movement must also be looked at globally. i find it difficult to reconcile that it is okay for these third world countries to make our products but it is not okay for them to share our society.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

it's not that complex jeanie. not really. on august 22nd 1770, captain cook took possession of the entire eastern seaboard of our country in the name of king george III under the law of terra nullius. this law assumed the land to be empty. we know the land was not empty and cook knew it too. natives were observed. what was not observed however was an infrastructure familar to europeans. so with no visible signs of a 'civilised' society as defined eurocentically, cook claimed the land.
i don't feel responsible either for what was done to dispossess the indigenous population. but i can certainly acknowledge that the white man was wrong. as he always is in cases where he wiped aside thousands of years of indigenous settlement in the name of a supposed superior civilisation because what he saw was foreign to what he was used to.
in this age of globalisation when we are so eager to accept the outsourcing of industry for the almighty dollar we must also see that human movement must also be looked at globally. i find it difficult to reconcile that it is okay for these third world countries to make our products but it is not okay for them to share our society.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Cook landed and claimed the land. The trouble is cate that not everyone agrees that the white man was wrong. Certainly it seems almost impossible for the indigenous population to even get recognition of the wrongs done in some cases let alone an apology, and that's before we even get to immigrants.
I'm not so sure that globalization is such a good thing. I mean do we really need all this stuff anyway? And as for sharing our society. I have no problem with sharing but I'm not so sure we are in a position to share. We don't have enough water to sustain the agriculture for the industries that we have now that are busy participating in the global world market. Many of them foreign owned. If we don't look at these practices and come up with real, sustainable solutions to many of our current environmental issues this land will not be inhabitable for those of us that are here already let alone taking in extras. I understand that the issues may seem cut and dried but the fact remains that nothing changes because people cannot agree. And until we have consensus nothing will. That's what makes it complex cate. Nothing we have done so far has rectified these deplorable situations and unless we find a way to change tack and come at this from a different angle, nothing will

catefrances

oh i never said globalisation was a good thing. i merely stated that i figured if it's good enough for commerce why is it not good enough for emigration/immigration.
i guess the complexity facing the white man here in australia is that if he acknowledges the illegality of terra nullius as it applies to the claiming of 'australia' in 1770, then he opens the door to native title and you and me both know jeanie we can not possibly have that happen.

mammasan

onelongsong I do like the analogy but it fails to mention a very important component in the immigration problem, the companies that hire them. The reason they come here is because they know they will find work. Everyone is so focused on punishing the illegals for breaking the law but they glance over the US companies that are breaking the law as well.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

oh i never said globalisation was a good thing. i merely stated that i figured if it's good enough for commerce why is it not good enough for emigration/immigration.
i guess the complexity facing the white man here in australia is that if he acknowledges the illegality of terra nullius as it applies to the claiming of 'australia' in 1770, then he opens the door to native title and you and me both know jeanie we can not possibly have that happen.

I say let's scrap globalization all together. I figure if the rich and powerful want it soooo much then it must be a bad thing. Simplistic I realize but probably very true and usually my rule of thumb. Actually if we got rid of globalization I can't help wondering if we wouldn't have so many refugees in the first place. Or maybe we should just get rid of the rich and powerful. Seems they're more trouble than they are worth.
You know I still hold hopes that eventually this country will acknowledge native title and that somehow we will negotiate a settlement that is beneficial to all Australians. But I realize that's probably a pipe dream too!

Alex_Coe

catefrances wrote:

big difference between the house i own and the country i don't own.

^wins a big cookie^

gue_barium

onelongsong wrote:

Let's say I break into your house
>
> A lady wrote the best letter in the Editorials
> In ages!!! It explains things better than all
> The baloney you hear on TV.
>
> Her point:
>
> Recently large demonstrations have taken place
> Across the country protesting the fact that Congress
> Is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.
>
> Certain people are angry that
> The US might protect its own
> Borders, might make it harder
> To sneak into this country and,
> Once here, to stay indefinitely.
>
> Let me see if I correctly understand
> The thinking behind these protests.
> Let's say I break into your house.
> Let's say that when you discover
> Me in your house, you insist that I leave.
>
> But I say, "I've made all
> The beds and washed the
> Dishes and did the laundry
> And swept the floors. I've
> Done all the things you don't
> Like to do. I'm hard-working
> And honest
> (except for when I broke into your house) .
>
> According to the protesters:
>
> You are Required to let me stay in your house
> You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
> You are Required to Educate my kids
> You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
>
> (my husband will do all of your yard work because
> He is also hard-working and honest, except for that
> Breaking in part).
>
> If you try to call the police or force me out,
> I will call my friends who will picket your
> House carrying signs that proclaim my
> RIGHT to be there.
>
>
> It's only fair, after all, because you have
> A nicer house than I do, and I'm just
> Trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working
> And honest, person, except for well,
> You know, I did break into your house
>
> And what a deal it is for me!!!
>
> I live in your house, contributing only a
> Fraction of the cost of my keep, and
> There is nothing you can do about it
> Without being accused of cold,
> Uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and
> Bigoted behavior.
>
> Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you to learn
> MY LANGUAGE!!! So you can
> Communicate with me.
>
> Why can't people see how ridiculous
> This is?! Only in America .
> If you agree, pass it on (in English ).
> Share it if you see the value of it.
>
> If not blow it off.........
> Along with your future Social Security funds and a lot of other things.

What needs to be addressed as well is legal immigration. I think the "legal allowable" number is somewhere upwards of one million per year. I think that's way too many.

Alex_Coe

One million is fine. That's something close to this country's birthrate (A lot lower, maybe? Because if our birthrate is ~1%, then that would mean 3 million babies born per year.)

gue_barium

Alex_Coe wrote:

One million is fine. That's something close to this country's birthrate (A lot lower, maybe? Because if our birthrate is ~1%, then that would mean 3 million babies born per year.)

I dunno. I think of it in terms of a city of that size springing up each year. I don't see that as good for the environment, mainly, with the resources it entails. Little babies being born are kind of low-impact compared to a million new adults.

Jeanie

Surely we have to focus on the big issue here, and that is that people are having to leave their country of birth and their families in search of a better life somewhere else.

I simply cannot imagine having to do that. And I hope that we are always lucky here in Australia and I won't have to.

What needs to happen is we need to look at what it is that is happening in the world that is making these countries uninhabitable for people so that they are willing to risk everything in order to seek refugee status elsewhere.

Simply detaining them or complaining about them once they get here is just poor management in my opinion.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

Surely we have to focus on the big issue here, and that is that people are having to leave their country of birth and their families in search of a better life somewhere else.

I simply cannot imagine having to do that. And I hope that we are always lucky here in Australia and I won't have to.

What needs to happen is we need to look at what it is that is happening in the world that is making these countries uninhabitable for people so that they are willing to risk everything in order to seek refugee status elsewhere.

Simply detaining them or complaining about them once they get here is just poor management in my opinion.

what jeanie? are you suggesting we actally look at the root of the problem instead of just putting a bandaid over it? have you gone totally mad girl?

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

what jeanie? are you suggesting we actally look at the root of the problem instead of just putting a bandaid over it? have you gone totally mad girl?

Well I guess if we look at the root of the problem, then the big end of town and the government would have to make the most changes and I simply cannot see them doing that! They might have to give up a few things and as aquisition seems to be the name of the game I can forsee some rather large tanties should anyone attempt to teach a little self discipline!

Yes!! I think you're right cate!! I've completely lost the plot!

catefrances

i often wonder why the West(and by this i mean the governments) doesn't give a rat's arse about the majority world. i have my suspicions but don't want to be pigeonholed as a bleeding heart liberal commy left wing traitor to democracy. and as we all know democracy is simply a synonym for free market.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

i often wonder why the West(and by this i mean the governments) doesn't give a rat's arse about the majority world. i have my suspicions but don't want to be pigeonholed as a bleeding heart liberal commy left wing traitor to democracy. and as we all know democracy is simply a synonym for free market.

Yeah, well you won't get any arguments out of me comrade!!

Scubascott

Jeanie wrote:

And as for sharing our society. I have no problem with sharing but I'm not so sure we are in a position to share. We don't have enough water to sustain the agriculture for the industries that we have now that are busy participating in the global world market. Many of them foreign owned. If we don't look at these practices and come up with real, sustainable solutions to many of our current environmental issues this land will not be inhabitable for those of us that are here already let alone taking in extras.

I kinda feel the same way. I understand that as a rich country we have an obligation to help the less fortunate, but we have limited natural resources (well, limited water anyway). Its seems pretty apparent to me that we are already pushing our water resorces to the very limit with our current population. That's why I can never understand the constant promotion of incentives for women to have more babies etc. Why do we need population growth? To encourage further economic growth? Why do we need economic growth? Isn't economic stability enough? Immigration just adds even more pressure.

catefrances

Scubascott wrote:

I kinda feel the same way. I understand that as a rich country we have an obligation to help the less fortunate, but we have limited natural resources (well, limited water anyway). Its seems pretty apparent to me that we are already pushing our water resorces to the very limit with our current population. That's why I can never understand the constant promotion of incentives for women to have more babies etc. Why do we need population growth? To encourage further economic growth? Why do we need economic growth? Isn't economic stability enough? Immigration just adds even more pressure.

woman in australia are encouraged to have more babies so we dont have to import people not like us. if we have ZPG then the only alternative is to allow immigration. and some of those people are just plain undesirable. ask pauline hanson shse'll set you straight.

Scubascott

catefrances wrote:

woman in australia are encouraged to have more babies so we dont have to import people not like us. if we have ZPG then the only alternative is to allow immigration. and some of those people are just plain undesirable. ask pauline hanson shse'll set you straight.

Huh? My point is why do we need any population growth? As you can probably tell, I'm no economist, but what's wrong with zero population growth and zero economic growth? If the current economy is strong enough to adequately support the current population, why can't we just aim to keep things stable?

I realise this probably sounds ridiculously naive, but its something I've never understood, so if someone could explain it to me I'd be very grateful.

BTW, just as matter of interest, apparently the UK currently has a negative birthrate, but its population continues to grow due to high immigration rates.

catefrances

Scubascott wrote:

Huh? My point is why do we need any population growth? As you can probably tell, I'm no economist, but what's wrong with zero population growth and zero economic growth? If the current economy is strong enough to adequately support the current population, why can't we just aim to keep things stable?

I realise this probably sounds ridiculously naive, but its something I've never understood, so if someone could explain it to me I'd be very grateful.

BTW, just as matter of interest, apparently the UK currently has a negative birthrate, but its population continues to grow due to high immigration rates.

sorry i'm a anti capitalist i know nothing about economics

Jeanie

Scubascott wrote:

Huh? My point is why do we need any population growth? As you can probably tell, I'm no economist, but what's wrong with zero population growth and zero economic growth? If the current economy is strong enough to adequately support the current population, why can't we just aim to keep things stable?

I realise this probably sounds ridiculously naive, but its something I've never understood, so if someone could explain it to me I'd be very grateful.

BTW, just as matter of interest, apparently the UK currently has a negative birthrate, but its population continues to grow due to high immigration rates.

Scott I think the argument for population growth is our aging population. Something that is being suffered in most countries of the western world.
We currently are able to support our system but worldwide it's looking like our current birth rates will not produce enough of a generation to care for or support financially the current population as it ages. That's fairly simple an explanation but I think it's what they are all aiming at.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

Scott I think the argument for population growth is our aging population. Something that is being suffered in most countries of the western world.
We currently are able to support our system but worldwide it's looking like our current birth rates will not produce enough of a generation to care for or support financially the current population as it ages. That's fairly simple an explanation but I think it's what they are all aiming at.

logan's run anyone?