... wrote on Aug 8^th, 2011 at 4:27pm:


Well, this is the reality. Yours is the fantasy. I'm just interested in the implications of your brave new world.

muso wrote on Aug 8^th, 2011 at 9:25am:


Stop family reunion for non-citizens immediately.
Tighten up citizenship : minimum 10 year residency, with at least 8 years in gainful employment.
Only temporary protection visas for refugees.
No government money for ethnic causes of any kind - let the ethnic communities fund their various jamborees.
No multilingual government leaflets and websites - English only.


You will find that there is  not need a government department to teach people how to assimilate. You make it obvious that it is necessary for a normal life here.

Quote:


Yep you have to scrape crap off your boots after walking around here sometimes. 

athos wrote on Aug 10^th, 2011 at 9:24am:



SOMEONE doesn't know what fascism means.  Classic leftard strategy - hurl as many labels as you can, in the hope that 1 will stick.

Soren wrote on Aug 9^th, 2011 at 11:13am:


OK, so asking you the same question as I asked Wesley -  Should Australia be a signatory to the list of International Conventions that I quoted earlier, and if not all, which do you think  should be excluded?

I ask this because just about every civilised country in the world has signed and/or ratified these conventions.  The exceptions are countries like Iran, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.

Now I tend to assume here that if we sign a convention, we'd have an expectation of complying.

... wrote on Aug 10^th, 2011 at 4:23pm:


The HREOC, which you brought up, and Japan is a signatory to most of them, including the convention on refugees.

muso wrote on Aug 10^th, 2011 at 4:17pm:



Being a signatory to the refugee convention does NOT require that you resettle refugees. Settlement and protection are two different things. That is why temporary protection is perfectly OK.

I don't know what other conventions you listed earlier but I do not see how any international convention could or would limit the way a country grants citizenship or residency or what money it makes available to any particular demographic segment.

Quote:



In effect, you are saying that this, nor any other country, has the right to determine who migrates here, under penalty of being called racist.  Of course, it is easily circumvented in a number of ways.  First, and most sensible is to simply ignore the shrill time wasters who would call it such.  Second is to make the criteria such that it excludes 3rd world deadbeats on other than racial grounds - and this is a must because I have never advocated for 100% of 'others' to be barred, just for the numbers to be thinned. It could be health grounds - noone with AIDS or TB allowed in - sounds fair.  It could be professional grounds - skills that are not in demand are struck from the list of skilled professions.  3rd is keeping the citizenship test - not dumbing it down because it's 'too hard'.  4th is getting rid of, or at least toughening up the family reunion clause. 

The left often say 'we only take 5000 (or whatever number it is) refugees a year, but the total migrant intake is what, 200,000?  It's obvious that of the 190,000 migrants other than refugees each year, that only a fraction of those have skills that are in demand.  Under what guise are so many coming?