Melanias purse wrote on Nov 9^th, 2009 at 12:54pm:



Anyone who lands at any of the airports without a passport or a visa is put on the first plane back to where he came from. It should not be different if you come on a boat. No passport or visa - off you go.

And a plane ticket is a damn sight cheaper than a place on one of these boats - unless of course you are flying first class, in which case it's much of a muchness, price-wise.

Do you fly first class?

Melanias purse wrote on Nov 9^th, 2009 at 9:49am:

Damned Whitlam government. lol

But on topic, I'll only support free movement to Australia when social security becomes limited to Australian-borns and citizens who have payed taxes for 10 years or more. Changing culture isn't much of an issue for me.

Quote:

Would you like to elaborate on "death as a nation"? Really, what happens when we become a minority? Will we be "oppressed" or "discriminated against" like the minorities of today?

Quote:


Certainly. The death of a nation entails one very important change; that of the replacement of the culture of the majority people. I have long maintained, on this forum, and elsewhere, that a culture can truly only be carried forward in a meaningful way by either the biological descendants of the people who created that culture or by their extended biological family (the race), not necessarily their direct antecedents in that instance. My justification for holding this belief should be obvious; as clustered behavioral tendencies of human beings tend to greatly differ (though are in no way uniform) across human groups, therefore, it should be expected that the culture, which is evidently in large part a manifestation of those biological tendencies, can not be fully transferred across racial boundaries. The replacement of the majority people in Australia; the Anglo-Saxon people, and to a lesser extent the whites of Continental Europe, by [insert some non-white people here] will probably see the end of the culture that I love in this nation, and as a result, the continunity of the nation of Australia as it hasbeen known since 1788, biological and traditional, will see its end too. Hence, 'the death of a nation'..

It should come as no surprise to anybody reading this either that the races poised to replace the Anglo-Saxon people have a much stronger sense of their own peoplehood than the aforementioned. If they are allowed to obtain majority status, it is unknown how they will deal with the former 'masters' of this land. Personally, I would rather not sit around twiddling my thumbs waiting to find out for sure. There is next to no benefit to minority immigration in the first place, but there is a plethora of risks both potential (with strong scientific and sociological justification to believe; this isn't crank nonsense) and concrete, as we are all able to observe at this current moment, to such a practice. If you find it silly for a nation to want to mitigate potential dangers at the expense of looking generous spirited and culturally sensitive, then you are placing your own personal image before the good of your own people.  And that, is watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

But then again..

Quote:


Perhaps you have not ensconced a single root in this nation to begin with, and it is of no concern of you that tearing down thousands upon thousands of years of accumulated white culture would be a great loss. Though I don't even believe you when you say this; would you like a Saudi Arabian culture in your neighbourhood? How about your own little slice of Nigeria? It's very easy to sit about and talk about how it won't make any difference before the fact that it does. Don't cry to us when things have truly changed for the worst.

Quote:


Who knows? Do you really want to find out? I don't. All I know is that the other races of the world do not share the pathetic moral-universalism embraced by whites; they think in terms, generally, of what is good for them. They put their extended family first. The cries of a few million persecuted whites will not have them running with suitcases loaded with government money to our aid. And anyway, if we did become a minority in this country, we would not be the only people at risk. Do you think the Cantonense are going to behave with the same munificence to the Aboriginals as we do? Do you think they're going to put up with their disproportionate representaton in violent crimes, many of which will be directed at their own people? Whites have a tendency to sweep this sort of information under the rug; the Chinese will just unleash upon them a fury not seen since the whites of the 19th century.

I will get round to replying to post number two in a second.

Quote:

Well, I don't think there are any dangers to Anglo-saxons as a minority since we are generally wealthier and well-educated relative to other ethnic groups. The thing with the past natives (aborigines) is that they were never "wealthy" or "well-educated" in the global sense
of the word and so Terra Nullius was declared. This sort of thing would never happen now.

Quote:

Perhaps, but I believe I don't belong anywhere else in the world (or to the extent that I belong in Sydney). A significant proportion of my relatives in the older generation were overseas workers in Saudi Arabia. I haven't really heard of any complaints... except from my aunt who got arrested for going to the markets by herself (I think). I think that Islam is becoming more progressive and is assimilating with the other cultures present here, so I don't think any significant change will occur, even if they have small communities. By the way, what is typical "white" culture generally associated with?

Quote:


Most of my friends are Chinese. I do not really feel that they are much different from myself. However, I do think that some only care for their extended family, but it really only does extend that far. My opinion is that they don't care for other families whether Chinese or not. I also can't really imagine white people being persecuted.

Melanias purse wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 9:35am:


I don't see anyone saying that the people who overstay their holiday visas should be ignored. In my opinion, an illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant, and they should not be allowed to stay in the country regardless of whether they came by boat or plane.

Hlysnan wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 2:53pm:


A refugee is not an illegal immigrant. Under international treaty (and Australian law), you have the right to go somewhere else (or come here) if you fear persecution, torture, or false imprisonment in your own state.

As for the boat/plane thing, Australia spent billions on the so-called "Pacific solution." We excised our borders, set up contracts with governments in Nauru and Christmas Island, upped our border patrols (or said we did, anyway). We set up detention centres and left people there for up to 10 years while we processed their claims. 90% were found to be genuine refugees, many of them children.

These policies are designed to ward off the hoards of boat people we're supposed to get if we're not seen to be "tough." Most years we get less than 2000 boat people. Compare this to the flood of refugees they get in Indonesia or Thailand. Compare this, even, to the refugees they get in France and England.

We get a trickle. Consistently. We get so few boat people that all of them can be easily absorbed into our population. Our refugee quota is miniscule in comparison to the rest of the world.

People complain about refugees getting financial assistance - it costs well over $1000 a week to keep one person in detention. Newstart Allowance is about $250.

People fear the criminal element getting in, but long for a return to the glory days of our ancestral past. Until the early 19th Century in NSW criminals made up the bulk of the population - convicts and the legal criminal element of corrupt soldiers and administrators.

And until the 1960s, if you were deemed racially "okay", there were few checks on anybody immigrating to Australia. We wanted you.

The whole "people-smuggling" crisis is an excercise in media management. It's designed to appease people like Alan Jones and reach out to voters in swinging electorates. Under John Howard, much of it was a response to Pauline Hanson. It's a game the media and politicians play to stir up fear and get ratings, and manage that fear and get votes.

Unfortunately, this is how the "body politic" is managed: short news cycles, political solutions designed to be sold in short sound bites, and a constant atmosphere of crisis to keep people watching through the ad breaks.

Our national response to this issue is crisis-driven, and extremely expensive. At its heart lies an irrational fear: that we are being swamped by hoards of "very strange" people. In actual fact, we're not. It is a complete myth designed to keep you watching.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance indeed.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 12:56pm:


The highest number of boat arrivals occurred in 1999, 2000 & 2001 (4175, 4137 & 3039 people respectively).

The number of boat arrivals last financial year (until June 2009) was 1033.