View Full Version : Germany disagrees with Australia's immigration Policy
BrisGirl
3 Jul 2002, 11:21
Does anyone else find this a little ironic?
Sydneyfan
3 Jul 2002, 12:22
I think the Germans have a valid point for their disagreement. Each year western Europe receives over 400,000 illegal immigrants each year, it be fair to assume Germany receive at least 100,000 since there and Britain are usually the most desired destinations for migrants, while we recieve less than 10,000. A trickle compared to a flood yet we mandatory detain the illegal immigrants in deserted outposts hundreds of miles from any significant cities.
Germany for the first half of the 20th Century, particularly during the 1930s and 1940s, had a despicable record towards ethnic minorities and migrants though has done a lot to reverse the damage it did. Germany, West Germany at least, have been a worldwide leader for peace and tolerance for the second half of last century so I think they're entitled to disagree with our policy in regards illegal immigrants. Germany still has the challenge of large unemployment in the east of their country and lingering right-wing facist groups to deal with, yet has not (yet at least) taken such a hardline to illegal immigrants as opposed to Australia, despite having at least 10 times as many illegal migrants enter their nation each year.
I don't find it too ironic that they kick a stink about our policies when they are dealing with a lot larger numbers of illegal migrants each year compared with us.
Ethics lessons from the people who brought us WW2. How ironic?
Still, it gives us the opportunity to watch our beloved leader strut the world stage like a colossus. What style. What panache. What smallness of stature.
Quick, withdraw his visa, so they can have him over there permanently. There's a thought to conjure with: John Howard, asylum seeker.
ian_rocks
3 Jul 2002, 13:28
**** so called Illegal immigration (who the hell let that one into the journalist lexicon?), I say open the ****ing borders. You can call me whatever Commie (thanks), bleeding heart (I would be dead if I was one literally), but who the efffff cares. Nationalism is a cancer, and Germany had it bad, now Australia has it and we can't see it, we are blind to our own problems and we have become Hanson's dreamland. Germany does have a right to criticise, they took 40 000 Kosovar refugees whilst we took 400, they have a strong left wing and are pretty cool in how they treat minorities, except for maybe Romanys and the Turks. So, Hooray for Germany and their left wing!!!!!
Voice of Reason
3 Jul 2002, 17:48
Australia must have a sensible debate on population policy now.
The focus on the relatively small issue of boatpeople/asylum-seekers/illegal immigrants/Woomera and stuff misses the point almost completely.
There are so many other issues around how many people we have in this large, beautiful, arid land of ours (eg migration, economic growth, skills, multiculturalism, water, sustainability).
Is there a politician reading this? If so, get on with it and tell John Howard to sit down and shut up.
Originally posted by BrisGirl
Does anyone else find this a little ironic?
Ironic in what regard?
Because of the policies of the NAZI regime in the 1930's and 1940's? Give me a break. :rolleyes: Using that logic, you must also have a fairly dim view of any German that you meet, as well as the German country and culture as a whole.
You're comparing contemporary events, with events which occured more than 50 years ago, and which have been dealt with and are essentially dead and buried. I don't see why then, these issues should be indefinitely held against any person /country, or why they should impact upon what beliefs that person/country now has (especially considering the country in question is in an entirely different political state, and has been for near on 50 years).
Likewise, the two issues are very much unrelated. They are two separate incidents out of time (with different cicrcumstances involved).
While you may be able to draw some sort of "ethical parallel", don't you think that German people all around the world, and the German nation and culture as a whole have suffered enough already due to being held accountable for the actions of the NAZI regime, which did/does not represent Germany (but rather the intentions of a number of evil individuals)?
London Dave
3 Jul 2002, 20:19
Let's not forget that whilst the Germans had a sad record prior to WW2, the clean living christian Australia used the White Australia policy before AND after the war.......people in glass houses!
We care far too much about what other cultures think about our policies. We are a democracy and voted for the people who form our policies. In a very short maximum time of three years we can choose to elect others if those policies are disagreeable to the majority. Until then we should support our elected voice and damn what 'others' have to say.
London Dave
3 Jul 2002, 20:52
Unless of course, you disagreed with the policies in the first place, otherwise, I take it Frodo you were a Hawke/Keating supporter in the 80s to mid 90s!
Originally posted by skilts
Ethics lessons from the people who brought us WW2. How ironic?
I don't think any country has a desirable record when it comes to racial relations. History is bad everywhere. World War 2 was over 50 years ago things in Germany have improved since then, obviously.
My question is, if our land can't handle more people, why is everyone so worried about an aging population and us not having as high a fertility rate as we used to. Surely that's a good thing? The sooner we begin to die out, the sooner we can let people in surely.
Bomber Spirit
3 Jul 2002, 21:58
Every now and then some ivory-tower academic or someone from the building industry talks in the media about the need to increase immigration because of our aging population. It baffles me - unless they're talking about bringing back some child migration scheme I can't see how increasing immigration is going to reverse the aging population.
Originally posted by Frodo
We care far too much about what other cultures think about our policies. We are a democracy and voted for the people who form our policies. In a very short maximum time of three years we can choose to elect others if those policies are disagreeable to the majority. Until then we should support our elected voice and damn what 'others' have to say.
I note you are still living in Western Australia.
The absurdity of our immigration is in its ineffectiveness. The fact is, we are unable to stop people coming to our shores, either by ship, boat or aircraft. There are no national boundaries.
Howard, Ruddock et al know this. This issue is a political winner for them (80% approval, and rising). You don't think winning an election is going to stop these ****ers from doing more of the same. Godfrey Daniel, are people so dumb that they think this issue is about immigration? It's about winning elections. Pauline Hansen has won.
The German reference is NOT outdated by being 57 years hence. The American occupying forces taught them how to hide their prejudices. Even this is starting to unravel. Does anyone REALLY believe that Germans don't still hate Jews?
Ian Rocks made a very important point, i.e. national boundaries are redundant. This is the reality. The thing on which we post these messages is confirmation of this.
Originally posted by skilts
The German reference is NOT outdated by being 57 years hence. The American occupying forces taught them how to hide their prejudices. Even this is starting to unravel. Does anyone REALLY believe that Germans don't still hate Jews?
Are you racist skilts? I am serious.
The German may have had a dreconian policy in place from 1933-45 but that is now past. The hatred of the Jews in Germany is no diferent to that in England or Australia. There will always be minority groups who have a gripe against various religious or ethinic groups.
We should also look at the History of things in Australia and the USA. The banning of the communist party and the MCCarthy trials in the USA. How is that allowed in the so called perfect democracy. Looking at the USA as an example of how to run a country and of equality is stupid, you would do better to look across the Tasman Sea and you'll find a more democratic country with a better chance for equality.
Voice of Reason
3 Jul 2002, 23:49
Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
Every now and then some ivory-tower academic or someone from the building industry talks in the media about the need to increase immigration because of our aging population. It baffles me - unless they're talking about bringing back some child migration scheme I can't see how increasing immigration is going to reverse the aging population.
I don't think anyone's suggesting it'll reverse the ageing population - rather that it will provide an influx of younger people such as children and workers who will contribute taxes to help support the ageing population as they establish themselves. They will also bring buying power through their spending as consumers and innovation and production, which in turn will help economic growth.
National boundaries are less relevant than they were, but have not yet completely disappeared (see "Customs" or visit an international airport). Because of its distance and surrounding oceans, Australia is still relatively far away from the rest of the world, so it is easier for migrants to get into Europe or Britain, especially as we have the airports pretty much tied up.
So I say that immigration policy is highly relevant.
For the record, most of the Germans I have met in my lifetime have not hated Jews.
Originally posted by Slax
Are you racist skilts? I am serious.
The German may have had a dreconian policy in place from 1933-45 but that is now past. The hatred of the Jews in Germany is no diferent to that in England or Australia. There will always be minority groups who have a gripe against various religious or ethinic groups.
We should also look at the History of things in Australia and the USA. The banning of the communist party and the MCCarthy trials in the USA. How is that allowed in the so called perfect democracy. Looking at the USA as an example of how to run a country and of equality is stupid, you would do better to look across the Tasman Sea and you'll find a more democratic country with a better chance for equality.
Slax, we share a passion for a football team. It amazes me that you think immigration is a REAL issue, in this country. This whole issue is a contrivance, both here and overseas. Are you really asserting that Howard would be taking this line if there were no votes in it?
If you really want to have a look at the history of Christian/German racism you have to go back to the middle of the nineteenth century. When the Prussians (they were the warring factions), became the prevailing power in what they hoped would become Germany, they painted themselves into a corner. They had to pander to the prejudices of the peasants who represented what was great about the Germanic tribes, to them.
That was the Christian denigration of all that was Semitic and by extention a denigration of all that was different. They, like some of us now, were scared of the difference and the success of these people who killed Christ (or so they thought).
From my encounters with those of this Germanic tribe, I don't think much has changed since then.
If you find this racist, I ask you to conduct some research, beyond Hitler. If we don't understand why Hitler happened, I hold out very little hope we'll learn from his follies. Is that politically correct enough for you?
For some obscure reason, you pre-suppose a commitment to democracy on my part. Why would you think that way?
Originally posted by London Dave
Unless of course, you disagreed with the policies in the first place, otherwise, I take it Frodo you were a Hawke/Keating supporter in the 80s to mid 90s!
I was never a supporter of any party or politician in my life. I vote for policy based on what is right IMO for Australia and my own specific needs.
But in that era I always supported the govenments stance overseas as being that of Australia and therefore me.
Originally posted by skilts
I note you are still living in Western Australia.
I note the racist flavour of your comment
Originally posted by Frodo
I note the racist flavour of your comment
I haven't been to the races since the 1991 Melbourne Cup.
Originally posted by skilts
The German reference is NOT outdated by being 57 years hence.
How is holding the events of WW2 against Germans any different to your example of others holding the death of Christ against the Jewish peoples?
Originally posted by skilts
The American occupying forces taught them how to hide their prejudices.
American occupying forces . . . pfft! The saviours of the modern world, I suppose. You're beginning to wallow in the irony of turning a blind eye . . .
Originally posted by skilts
Does anyone REALLY believe that Germans don't still hate Jews?
What misconception makes you think that 'Germans' would 'hate' Jews any more or less than anyone else?
What about the Americans turning back shiploads of Jewish refugees from Europe before the onset of WW2?
BrisGirl
5 Jul 2002, 10:28
At least Australia are answerable to the world and to the United Nations.
There are a lot of Countries that are guilty of atrocities against their own people, let alone immigrants, we are but small fish compared to a lot of other Countries.
This is a fairly new policy and there is a lot of room to move and room for correction. I don't doubt that in a couple of years, it will become a smooth and correct procedure.
Just the fact we can write on boards like this one and express our views, just shows how lucky we are. No wonder people want to come here to live.
I can only think of all of the boat people that did make it to our shores without going through Customs and checks, and are running around Australia today without a Medicare Card, a drivers licence or a job. More than likely, they might not even know how to speak English.
There are reasons why people have to have a stop over in detention centre if they don't come through the right channels. They are checked over medically, given an identity and no doubt given a Medicare Card, so at least they can be looked after if they become sick.
There has to be systems in place to make sure if they come here they will be looked after in the best possible way.
We all know that if you become sick and can not clothe or obtain food for yourself, we know we can go to our Government and they will look after us. How is this funded, by our tax money. If we have an immigrant come here, I would like to know that they will be looked after if they or their family become sick.
What the Government are doing today is not being bullied by the World, we are doing our bit, admittedly slowly, but we are getting there. Isn't it better to do the job properly than to have the Country swamped with people that we can not look after?
Voice of Reason
5 Jul 2002, 13:27
Originally posted by BrisGirl
At least Australia are answerable to the world and to the United Nations.
There are a lot of Countries that are guilty of atrocities against their own people, let alone immigrants, we are but small fish compared to a lot of other Countries.
This is a fairly new policy and there is a lot of room to move and room for correction. I don't doubt that in a couple of years, it will become a smooth and correct procedure.
Just the fact we can write on boards like this one and express our views, just shows how lucky we are. No wonder people want to come here to live.
I can only think of all of the boat people that did make it to our shores without going through Customs and checks, and are running around Australia today without a Medicare Card, a drivers licence or a job. More than likely, they might not even know how to speak English.
There are reasons why people have to have a stop over in detention centre if they don't come through the right channels. They are checked over medically, given an identity and no doubt given a Medicare Card, so at least they can be looked after if they become sick.
There has to be systems in place to make sure if they come here they will be looked after in the best possible way.
We all know that if you become sick and can not clothe or obtain food for yourself, we know we can go to our Government and they will look after us. How is this funded, by our tax money. If we have an immigrant come here, I would like to know that they will be looked after if they or their family become sick.
What the Government are doing today is not being bullied by the World, we are doing our bit, admittedly slowly, but we are getting there. Isn't it better to do the job properly than to have the Country swamped with people that we can not look after?
Yes it is, but we're not being swamped. Our government is making a mountain out of a molehill (and becoming ever more popular domestically and unpopular internationally by doing so), while failing to address the underlying issues, such as:
- how many and what type of people do we need in Australia (numbers, origins, English abilities, skills, wealth etc)?
- how can they best be supported (infrastructure, water, education, health, transport etc?
- what does our future together look like?
- how can Australia best play its part in the global village to help out with the people problems?
Originally posted by Stocka
How is holding the events of WW2 against Germans any different to your example of others holding the death of Christ against the Jewish peoples?
American occupying forces . . . pfft! The saviours of the modern world, I suppose. You're beginning to wallow in the irony of turning a blind eye . . .
What misconception makes you think that 'Germans' would 'hate' Jews any more or less than anyone else?
What about the Americans turning back shiploads of Jewish refugees from Europe before the onset of WW2?
Sorry Stocka, I must have missed the meeting wherein we decided that it would be O.K. to argue against things on this board that people HAVEN'T said. Your creativity is very impressive though.
Please let me know if you ever get around to reading something I've actually written, and about which you wish to comment.
Bomber Spirit
5 Jul 2002, 22:22
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
I don't think anyone's suggesting it'll reverse the ageing population - rather that it will provide an influx of younger people such as children and workers who will contribute taxes to help support the ageing population as they establish themselves. They will also bring buying power through their spending as consumers and innovation and production, which in turn will help economic growth.But then when they retire there'll be even more older people for the system to support; so then the immigration numbers would need to spiral even higher.
And how are the increased numbers going to get to work? Our roads and public transport system in peak hour is already gridlocked.
Originally posted by skilts
Sorry Stocka, I must have missed the meeting wherein we decided that it would be O.K. to argue against things on this board that people HAVEN'T said. Your creativity is very impressive though.
Please let me know if you ever get around to reading something I've actually written, and about which you wish to comment.
My response was to direct quotes from your posts. If you're saying that I've misinterpretted your comments, then perhaps you would do us the courtesy of reviewing your post to clarify your stance (which appeared to be of a distinctly condescending nature towards 'Germans'). To me, my comments directly correlate to your comments, although you seem to believe I've tried to incorrectly embelish my own impression while empathising with the mentality that you seem to carry (which would be apportioned to the sentiments that you conveyed in your ealier postings).
For what it's worth, I could take up quite a number of points that you have mentioned in this thread, but have chosen not to so far. Likewise, I also think you know exactly how my post relates to your comments, but for whatever reason (perhaps the pursuit of trolling), you've returned a 'blank' response.
Perhaps in the future, if you wish to declare points of obvious controversy, you should also be willing to be challenged upon such views, without submitting a rather 'default' response. (Otherwise you risk looking like someone who's just realised that they've painted themselves into a corner in the heat of the moment!).
Originally posted by skilts
I ask you to conduct some research, beyond Hitler. If we don't understand why Hitler happened, I hold out very little hope we'll learn from his follies. Is that politically correct enough for you?
You want to know why Hitler happened? The west created Hitler themselves. The financial demands placed on Germany after WWI for restitution for damages was so serve it crippled the German economy. After 10 years of struggling to meet repayments to France, England and the Flemish countries the great depression broke out causing bigger problems.
If you care to look it up you will see references to the hyper inflation that existed in Germany in 1929, it was cheaper to burn a wheelbarrow full of notes than to burn a wheelbarrow full of wood. People were p*ssed off, both at the west and at the Jews who ran the financial markets in Germany at the time. This came about because the banks made it difficult for people to get at the savings and charged enormous rates of interest on loans.
Hitler was elected for the first time in 1932 where he formed a coalition government on the platform of providing work and slowing inflation. His first act was to stop all payments to the west and then invest that money into the economy. With increasing jobs and slowing inflation he won his second (and last) election. this was when he set up the 3rd Reich. The west is not totally innocent.
Originally posted by skilts
I haven't been to the races since the 1991 Melbourne Cup.
Another problem. Cup day is hopeless racing with a whole lot of drunks, but very good for the sight seeing though.
Voice of Reason
6 Jul 2002, 11:39
Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
But then when they retire there'll be even more older people for the system to support; so then the immigration numbers would need to spiral even higher.
And how are the increased numbers going to get to work? Our roads and public transport system in peak hour is already gridlocked.
In forty or fifty years time, maybe we'd need to maintain an increased level of immigration, depending on numerous factors like better technology that may mean a smaller workforce can support a larger population.
You are such a Sydneysider! Australia is not Sydney! Not all immigrants have to go to Sydney and live in the Western Suburbs and complain about how hard everything is.
This is really my whole point - the Government says very little about the important issues like where people live, what work they do, how we support older people, where we can put new industries etc etc etc, instead concentrating on something which in world terms (and even Australian terms) is tiny.
We're not being swamped by anybody. But we're also not planning how we'd like to grow Australia. I'm not saying my answer (increased immigration of the right sort and incentives to live outside of Sydney) is necessarily the right answer, but it would be nice if the government at least assessed the options.
Bomber Spirit
6 Jul 2002, 12:38
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
You are such a Sydneysider! Australia is not Sydney! Not all immigrants have to go to Sydney and live in the Western Suburbs and complain about how hard everything is.That's where the majority go. How do you stop them?
Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
That's where the majority go. How do you stop them?
We could..................naaaaaaa.......you'd think I was racist and anti aboriginal if I said that......so I wont ;)
Originally posted by Slax
Another problem. Cup day is hopeless racing with a whole lot of drunks, but very good for the sight seeing though.
Spot on there Slax, I didn't see any of the big race, too p*ssed, and too many people. Managed to leave just as the obligatory all-in brawl erupted though.
dreamkillers
6 Jul 2002, 14:41
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Australia must have a sensible debate on population policy now.
The focus on the relatively small issue of boatpeople/asylum-seekers/illegal immigrants/Woomera and stuff misses the point almost completely.
There are so many other issues around how many people we have in this large, beautiful, arid land of ours (eg migration, economic growth, skills, multiculturalism, water, sustainability).
Is there a politician reading this? If so, get on with it and tell John Howard to sit down and shut up.
Here here......unfortunately our pollies tend to only look 2-3 years ahead to ensure they are re-elected.
What this country needs now is serious debates on the issues that will affect us for the next 20+ years..........being the environment, education, pro active health care, immigration etc etc.....
The destruction we continue to do to the environment will really harm future generations and if we were more pro active environmentally there are many more benefits for future generations instead of the short sightedness of land clearing, wood chipping, water use etc etc......
I was interested to read recently about the proposal to build a pipeline from the Kimberleys/Top End to shore up water resources down south that have virtually killed off the Murray river. Unfortunately it appears to have no political support from either of the major parties.
I also find it very strange that the federal govt do not want to ensure gas from the Timor fields comes onshore to Australia where it would lead to many new opportunities for the whole of the country by ensuring a cheap fuel is available for at least the next 30-40 years.
Instead they continue to say Woodside and Shell should do what is in their own best interests which will more than likely mean this gas and the opportunities it brings will be lost to Australia and the only winners will be the shareholders of the above companies. Even the tax benefits will be minimized by keeping it off shore.
Far too much time, money and media coverage is given to matters like the 5000 boat people that hit our shores each year compared to the real issues that will affect us for many generations to come.....
Originally posted by Slax
You want to know why Hitler happened? The west created Hitler themselves. The financial demands placed on Germany after WWI for restitution for damages was so serve it crippled the German economy. After 10 years of struggling to meet repayments to France, England and the Flemish countries the great depression broke out causing bigger problems.
If you care to look it up you will see references to the hyper inflation that existed in Germany in 1929, it was cheaper to burn a wheelbarrow full of notes than to burn a wheelbarrow full of wood. People were p*ssed off, both at the west and at the Jews who ran the financial markets in Germany at the time. This came about because the banks made it difficult for people to get at the savings and charged enormous rates of interest on loans.
Hitler was elected for the first time in 1932 where he formed a coalition government on the platform of providing work and slowing inflation. His first act was to stop all payments to the west and then invest that money into the economy. With increasing jobs and slowing inflation he won his second (and last) election. this was when he set up the 3rd Reich. The west is not totally innocent.
Agreed.
Add to that, the ineptitude of the Weimar government, which seemingly pandered to the demands of foreign powers, and the rush of "nationalism" and national pride was all too sweet when matched with the economic incentives of the NAZI government. From there it was all to easy to "brainwash" the masses into believing what you wanted them to believe.
Well said Stocka,
I also could've added the fact that Europe allowed it to happen. Under the treaty agreement after WWI Germany were not allowed to build an army, so much for that clause being invoked.
Originally posted by Slax
You want to know why Hitler happened? The west created Hitler themselves. The financial demands placed on Germany after WWI for restitution for damages was so serve it crippled the German economy. After 10 years of struggling to meet repayments to France, England and the Flemish countries the great depression broke out causing bigger problems.
Actually rather than blaming the ''west", blame France. France was determined to see Germany crippled and I suppose from a Frenchman's point of view they had good reason. After all the bulk of the fighting in World War II was on the Western Front in Belgium and France and Germany had invaded France twice in the previous forty years.
The financial demands placed on Germany after WW1 was set at 6.6 million pounds, after the French had wanted 13 million pounds. The Germans paid an installment in 1922 and asked for an extension of 2 years before the second one. Britain agreed, but France refused. When Germany defaulted on its 1923 payment, France and Belgium invaded the Ruhr valley to take the payment owed. Reparation payment were steadily reduced during the 1920's and in 1932 they were cancelled altogether.
Originally posted by Slax
If you care to look it up you will see references to the hyper inflation that existed in Germany in 1929, it was cheaper to burn a wheelbarrow full of notes than to burn a wheelbarrow full of wood.
Hyperinflation in Germany actually started in 1923, as a result of the French invasion of the Ruhr Valley. In protest at the invasion of the Ruhr many German workers encouraged by the German government went on strike and were subsequently sacked. The government had no money to help these displaced people so it printed extra money, causing already existing inflation to become hyper inflation.
The next government led by Gustav Streseman threw out the old currency and issued a new currency where one rentenmark was worth 1,000,000,000,000 marks. The German economy recovered, by borrowing from overseas and the Nazis in the 1928 election only recieved about 800,000 votes, compared with the 17 million they received in 1933.
Originally posted by Slax
People were p*ssed off, both at the west and at the Jews who ran the financial markets in Germany at the time. This came about because the banks made it difficult for people to get at the savings and charged enormous rates of interest on loans.
Hitler blamed the Jews mainly for their supposed participation in the humiliation of Germany at the end of World War I. There was always a virulent strain of anti-semitism in Germany and indeed all of Europe.
Originally posted by Slax
Hitler was elected for the first time in 1932 where he formed a coalition government on the platform of providing work and slowing inflation. His first act was to stop all payments to the west and then invest that money into the economy. With increasing jobs and slowing inflation he won his second (and last) election. this was when he set up the 3rd Reich. The west is not totally innocent.
In fact it was Chancellor von Papen who persuaded the Allies to cancel the reparations in June 1932, before Hitler became Chancellor.
In the election of November 1932, Hitler actually lost 2 million votes from the election that had been held in July 1932. It was Papen's deal with Hitler and also a growing fear of the Communists, who were blamed for the burning of the Reichstag, that saw Hitler finally become Chancellor. It wasn't slowing down inflation, nor was it the reduction of unemployment. Unemployment reached a height of 6 million people in January 1933.
It wasn't until after Hitler had attained power, that the economic situation began to improve. Hitler destroyed the trade union movement and made striking illegal as well as keeping down wages as workers lost the right to bargain over wages and conditions. These all restored German businesses economic confidence. The Nazis also dismissed all female public employees in about 1934 and re-introduced conscription.
Originally posted by Stocka
Add to that, the ineptitude of the Weimar government, which seemingly pandered to the demands of foreign powers, and the rush of "nationalism" and national pride was all too sweet when matched with the economic incentives of the NAZI government. From there it was all to easy to "brainwash" the masses into believing what you wanted them to believe.
Perhaps early on, the Weimar government was accused of giving into the Allies' demands re: Versailles, and perhaps it could be accused of being inept from 1918-1923. However it is difficult to see how the Weimar government was inept after 1924. Gustav Streseman dragged Germany out from the mire. He introduced a new currency, persuaded the Allies to reduce the reparations, borrowed money to kick-start the economy and reduce unemployment.
Mobbenfuhrer
10 Jul 2002, 07:12
On immigration for purposes of retarding the ageing of the populace, I thought the idea was to get people in who were actually interested in having children.
The Australian population aren't keen on it. We're just not having kids. I assumed the idea was to get some people in who would.
Sydneyfan
10 Jul 2002, 14:11
There's been a lot of talk here in Sydney over the last week about immigration. NSW Premier Bob Carr met with Federal Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock to discuss immigration.
The situation at the moment is that 40%+ of all immigrants to Australia choose to stay in Sydney, which is putting a lot of pressure on Sydney's resources, infrastructure, etc.
At the moment, it seems Australia needs immigrants but Sydney doesn't. The hard part is to get people to move to the bush. Some initiatives are being developed such receiving more 'points' on your immigration eligibility if you're prepared to live in the bush, people with skills which are needed in the bush getting more 'points' etc. Hopefully, these initatives will work to get immigration spread further across Australia. The problem is definitely not immigration, the problem is concentration of immigration in the large cities such as Sydney and Melbourne where immigration is not needed as much as in rural Australia where local populations and economies are in decline, and where there's often a 'brain drain' of bright young people to the big cities leaving an ageing population.
Voice of Reason
10 Jul 2002, 15:39
Originally posted by Sydneyfan
There's been a lot of talk here in Sydney over the last week about immigration. NSW Premier Bob Carr met with Federal Immigration Minister Phillip Ruddock to discuss immigration.
The situation at the moment is that 40%+ of all immigrants to Australia choose to stay in Sydney, which is putting a lot of pressure on Sydney's resources, infrastructure, etc.
At the moment, it seems Australia needs immigrants but Sydney doesn't. The hard part is to get people to move to the bush. Some initiatives are being developed such receiving more 'points' on your immigration eligibility if you're prepared to live in the bush, people with skills which are needed in the bush getting more 'points' etc. Hopefully, these initatives will work to get immigration spread further across Australia. The problem is definitely not immigration, the problem is concentration of immigration in the large cities such as Sydney and Melbourne where immigration is not needed as much as in rural Australia where local populations and economies are in decline, and where there's often a 'brain drain' of bright young people to the big cities leaving an ageing population.
Good to hear they are at least trying to do something about it. Maybe they read bigfooty?
Going back to the original topic of discussion on immigration, there must be something done.
Australia at the moment is being slowly crippled by us become a lazy society were we waste everything and people live in the major cities. This will slowly mean that it becomes increasingly difficult for us to sustain ourselves and people need to look seriously at rural or small town living.
The government if the want to do something could demand that refugees live in certain areas or they do not get refuge status. This may sound like blackmail(well it is actually) but it will help some of our rural communities. Currently rural communities are suffering from 2 problems, lack of disposable income which affects the local store and a serious shortage of unskilled labour.
Moving refugees into rural communities would also for assimilation on them and stop what many people see as ghettos forming in our major cities. This is not a new idea but one that should be consider though, it's better than the Nauru option.
I've skimmed through the topic and I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that Australia has a reputation as a relatively clean, disease-free island.
This image helps our food exports.
Would a lax immigration policy increase the risk of entry of disease in this country?
Interesting to note that in Britain heterosexuals have overtaken homosexuals as the largest source of new HIV infections, and this is attributed to immigrants from Africa.
sussudio
22 Jul 2002, 15:00
Originally posted by Bluey
Would a lax immigration policy increase the risk of entry of disease in this country?
Australia averted the likes of the HIV epidemic because of sound public health measures, not because of immigration policies. We were at the forefront in educating the public about HIV, and the setting up of effective needle and syringe programs, promotion of safe sex, etc..
The high risk groups for HIV and Hepatitis transmission are gay men, injecting drug users and sex workers, not immigrants. The only time that immigrants introduced disease to Australia was the First Fleet, who introduced the cold, flu, chicken pox, etc to the Aboriginals.
Philip Ruddock
22 Jul 2002, 15:16
Little attempt has been made to verify all manner of claims relating to the treatment of immigration detainees and this has led to a perpetuation of the myths and inaccuracies. While it is inappropriate to use the media to address individual cases, real or imagined, many of the claims presented by advocates include gross distortions of the truth or are untested claims which bear little resemblance to fact. My department and I have time and again asked anyone with information pertaining to mistreatment of people in detention to report it to the appropriate authorities for action and/or investigation.
evade28
22 Jul 2002, 18:23
once again this comes down to population etc.
germany has about 90 million ppl
we have 20 million, how are we going to all of a sudden build 100, 000 houses in a year to house all these people, and where are we going to put them?
whether you like it or not this country cant really have a huge population because of how dry it is. yeah its bigger than most countries but how much of a percentage of it is livable, ****ed if i would want to live out in the desert!
we dont have enough water to support 400, 000 more people a year, yes we can 'fix' the rivers up north etc but whos gonna pay for that? our water supplies are already nearing 50% and Victoria has been in drought for 6 years now.
ANYWAY the fact of the matter is this is OUR country and since when did germany become the 'immigration sheriffs'?
its our country and we can do whatever we damn well please regarding who we do and dont let in.
Philip Ruddock
22 Jul 2002, 19:08
Originally posted by evade28
its our country and we can do whatever we damn well please regarding who we do and dont let in.
In September 2001, the Australian Government introduced significant legislative changes to strengthen border control and the management of unauthorised arrivals. These changes allow for certain parts of Australian territory to be excised from the migration zone for the purposes of unlawful arrivals wishing to make visa applications. A person landing in an excised territory is not entitled to make an application for a visa.
Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, offshore sea and resource installations are prescribed excised offshore places. This new legislation allows for people who arrive at an excised offshore place to be taken to a declared country. Two offshore processing facilities have been established with the cooperation of the Governments of Nauru and Papua New Guinea.
Refugee status determination is being conducted in accordance with the standards and broad processes adopted by the UNHCR.
The assessment processes aim to identify those who need protection. They will be then considered for resettlement in other countries, including Australia. Those found not to be in need of protection can be returned to their homeland or another country willing to take them.
Infectious diseases are not uncommon among boat arrivals. Many people arriving illegally come from areas where diseases such as typhoid, malaria and TB are found. There have been two confirmed cases of malaria among asylum seekers on Manus Island, but these were quickly treated.
Well you've got to give Ruddock his due, at least he's consistent. He's as big an uncaring ****wit on these boards as he is everywhere else.
Philip Ruddock
24 Jul 2002, 16:22
Australia's 2001-02 migration program has been delivered on target and was the largest and most highly skilled in a decade. Over the past year the program not only met the target of 85,000 places but was able to make full use of the 8000 place skill stream contingency reserve.
In other words, 53,520 highly skilled and educated young people and their families chose to make Australia their home in 2001-02, bringing with them their energy, their knowledge, their experience and their children.
We are going to be a better and stronger country for their decision to come and join us.
On current projections our population would start to fall in around
30 years time, if not for immigration. This underscores the importance of a well managed, well targeted program now and for the future. Commonwealth and State budgets and Australian living standards are benefiting substantially from the influx of these young skilled migrants who are hitting the labour market running.
It is also encouraging that migration is making a contribution to regional Australia with a record 4,136 visas granted under regional and State-specific initiatives. It is worth remembering that 85 per cent of the family stream is composed of the young and often skilled spouses and fiances of Australians.
Voice of Reason
25 Jul 2002, 11:25
I reckon Phil's made some good points here - you lot had better lift your game!