ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS .. thoughts and opinions? (3 Viewers)

[redmayne]

You can't draw parallels between people forced to come here as a result of the British penal system 200+ years ago and... jesus you're dumb

Granted, the first fleet were mostly convicts. But the vast majority of English who came here by boat in the 1700s and 1800s were free settlers. It's a very small minority of European Australians who have convict ancestry.

We didn't need visas or go into detention centres, and somehow we think - as descendants of boat people ourselves - that we have the right put people through these processes?

Just let them in. Everyone needs to stop trying to assert their dominance in being so "strong" against asylum seekers. They're not going through a fairly shitty journey for fun, or to be a so-called criminal, they're looking for a better life. That's supposed to be what Australia is all about, although in practice this saying has always seemed like a bit of a farce.

And this argument loses its credibility in that by far most of its support base consists of people who oppose immigration full stop. "Because they're all yucky [insert ethnic minority here] trying to destroy our ["aussie" culture/individual liberties/economy]."

It's all trash. Pull your head in and stop whinging.

Oh hey, and let me just finish with a quote from a song any "true blue aussie" knows.

"For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share,
With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair."

Then again, maybe they don't know it.

 

[will-anal]

If you spastics can't differentiate between now and 200 years ago, you're lost causes.

 

[ay0_x]

Why are you guys so stupid? White criminals had more of a right to be on this land, than people who want to make better lives for themselves.

mainly because they're WHITE.

 

[will-anal]

You guys are idiots.

Read my first post. I'm not disagreeing, I think they should be allowed in. I just think it's fucking spasticated that you guys make these ridiculous straw man arguments about the convicts and the British colonisation of Australia to support *this* argument*

Shut the fuck up and and leave 200 years ago, 200 years ago. If you can't come up with contemporary reasons why they should be allowed in, shut your fucking face.

 

[yer8899]

fuck immigrants, send em home

 

[redmayne]

You guys are idiots.

Read my first post. I'm not disagreeing, I think they should be allowed in. I just think it's fucking spasticated that you guys make these ridiculous straw man arguments about the convicts and the British colonisation of Australia to support *this* argument*

Shut the fuck up and and leave 200 years ago, 200 years ago. If you can't come up with contemporary reasons why they should be allowed in, shut your fucking face.

You seem so intent on convincing us that we should ignore history here? But why? For what reason?

It's perfectly relevant, as much as many of the arguments concerning contemporary factors. History builds up to make us what we are today, we shouldn't ignore it.

The effects of the immigration 200 years ago are all around us. It IS Australia. Shunning historical examples is as ignorant as shunning immigrants.

EDIT: And I know you agree with allowing immigrants, so...I dunno. Just wanted to make the point. Carry on.

 

[xeuyrawp]

You can't draw parallels between people forced to come here as a result of the British penal system 200+ years ago and... jesus you're dumb

Yeah, it's not like boat people are forced to come here, right? They're usually just hanging around their mansions in Asia or wherever, chilling out with a mojito, when they say to themselves 'hay I might take a boat trip to Australia.' So they get on their 'boats' which are actually luxurious cruiseliners, and come here in typical style, usually accompanied by a continuous repeat of 'I'm on a Boat'.

 

[Napstar]

Yeah, it's not like boat people are forced to come here, right? They're usually just hanging around their mansions in Asia or wherever, chilling out with a mojito, when they say to themselves 'hay I might take a boat trip to Australia.' So they get on their 'boats' which are actually luxurious cruiseliners, and come here in typical style, usually accompanied by a continuous repeat of 'I'm on a Boat'.

Fuck up spastic and read everything else I posted.

I'm saying that the circumstances and the context of these situations are completely different and one should not be used to validate the other. If people are going to argue that we should allow them in (and I haven't disagreed), they need to get over the colonisation of Australia and put forward contemporary reasons, like I don't know - human rights, compassion, strengthening of the Australian economy by people who would be willing to work.

I made it perfectly clear with my first and second responses that I am sympathetic to their plight.

P.s. if you're trolling me, get fucked
p.s.s. if you're not trolling me, get fucked.

 

[loquasagacious]

You seem so intent on convincing us that we should ignore history here? But why? For what reason?

It's perfectly relevant, as much as many of the arguments concerning contemporary factors. History builds up to make us what we are today, we shouldn't ignore it.

The effects of the immigration 200 years ago are all around us. It IS Australia. Shunning historical examples is as ignorant as shunning immigrants.

EDIT: And I know you agree with allowing immigrants, so...I dunno. Just wanted to make the point. Carry on.

The history is relevant insofar as saying that Australia has a long history of immigration and that immigration has made us what we are today. The history is irrelevant when you make the specific comparison that convicts were boat people.

I reject the relevance of the manner in which immigrants arrive and you should to because by engaging with it you allow it to frame the debate and give legitimacy to the idea that it matters.

 

[Uncle]

TO ARMS!

The Tamil Tigers are infiltrating the shorelines!

 

[incentivation]

It seems the legitimacy of our 'sovereignty' is not recognised by some one here (Yes, we all know that indigenous sovereignty was not initially contemplated, however the law has dealt with that issue as best it could)

The existence of sovereignty is what distinguishes the situation we face with regard to the refugees and the settlement of the British 200 years ago. One of the main implications of sovereignty is of course the authority to determine rules of entry and departure of persons within this designated territory. It would certainly be a challenge to dispute this authority.

Any comparison between those seeking refuge and British colonialism is futile.

[However, this is not to say that we should not honour the international obligations we hold to accept and determine the legitimacy of those seeking refuge]

 

[Lentern]

Some demon must surely have been let free upon the earth recently that is disturbing the natural order of life, I fear I am in agreement with Loquasagacious twice in a matter of days.

I fear maybe not today, maybe not the tomorrow but soon and until kingdom come history will judge harshly those who championed notions of illegal immigration. The idea that someone born in Ethiopia has no right to expect a lifestyle that I enjoy, and that I am magically entitled to by virtue of being born here is astounding. Such callous indifference to the sufferings of real human beings by virtue of indifference is so cruel and so selfish I cannot bring myself to believe it will remain a popular viewpoint in perpetuity.

So I say open the borders and if the sky should come tumbling down we must simply hope other nations don't condemn us for our birthplace.

 

[loquasagacious]

Some demon must surely have been let free upon the earth recently that is disturbing the natural order of life, I fear I am in agreement with Loquasagacious twice in a matter of days.

Treasure the moment.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

It seems the legitimacy of our 'sovereignty' is not recognised by some one here (Yes, we all know that indigenous sovereignty was not initially contemplated, however the law has dealt with that issue as best it could)

The existence of sovereignty is what distinguishes the situation we face with regard to the refugees and the settlement of the British 200 years ago. One of the main implications of sovereignty is of course the authority to determine rules of entry and departure of persons within this designated territory. It would certainly be a challenge to dispute this authority.

Any comparison between those seeking refuge and British colonialism is futile.

[However, this is not to say that we should not honour the international obligations we hold to accept and determine the legitimacy of those seeking refuge]

Sovereignty is complete bullshit made up by those who happen have the power and the guns to make their exercise of power seem legitimate.

It is all just a bunch of made up symbols; arbitrary lines on maps, silly coloured pieces of cloth and fancy costumes like blue suits, badges, and funny white wigs.

It's all make believe. The emperor has no clothes.

 

[loquasagacious]

Sovereignty is complete bullshit made up by those who happen have the power and the guns to make their exercise of power seem legitimate.

It is all just a bunch of made up symbols; arbitrary lines on maps, silly coloured pieces of cloth and fancy costumes like blue suits, badges, and funny white wigs.

It's all make believe. The emperor has no clothes.

I think you confuse soveriegnty with related concepts of nationalism and the nation-state, these concepts rely on sovereignty but sovereignty does not rely on them.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I think you confuse soveriegnty with related concepts of nationalism and the nation-state, these concepts rely on sovereignty but sovereignty does not rely on them.

Not really, he was obviously talking about the "sovereignty" of nation states, which relies of threats of force, and brainwashing people with these ridiculous symbols.

If you want to talk about individual sovereignty, which is totally incompatible with the sovereignty of nation states, that's another story.

 

[loquasagacious]

Not really, he was obviously talking about the "sovereignty" of nation states, which relies of threats of force, and brainwashing people with these ridiculous symbols.

If you want to talk about individual sovereignty, which is totally incompatible with the sovereignty of nation states, that's another story.

I was more alluding to fuedal concepts of soveriegnty.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Yeah, what about them?

 

[chicky_pie]

The first fleet were the first boat people.

my parents came here by plane (via france) and i am born here, so I am more of a citizen than anglo convicts

 

[chicky_pie]

Some demon must surely have been let free upon the earth recently that is disturbing the natural order of life, I fear I am in agreement with Loquasagacious twice in a matter of days.

I fear maybe not today, maybe not the tomorrow but soon and until kingdom come history will judge harshly those who championed notions of illegal immigration. The idea that someone born in Ethiopia has no right to expect a lifestyle that I enjoy, and that I am magically entitled to by virtue of being born here is astounding. Such callous indifference to the sufferings of real human beings by virtue of indifference is so cruel and so selfish I cannot bring myself to believe it will remain a popular viewpoint in perpetuity.

So I say open the borders and if the sky should come tumbling down we must simply hope other nations don't condemn us for our birthplace.

I prefer someone from Ethiopia who's been waiting in a refugee camp for years just to get accepted to live in a better country than these scumbags, who have enough money to wait and come here legally, plus they're already breaking the law by entering into our borders illegally, protesting and all these stupid hunger strikes just to gain some sort of deal.

Think of the poor African children that's currently waiting in refugee camps, just think of them even they couldn't afford such money that these scumbags have.