Mandatory detention of refugees (Stop the boats. 5k a head. Part 2)

[Gough]

They have to, ON is cleaving their vote far more than the Greens have ever done to the ALP.

 

[NSWCROW]

They have to, ON is cleaving their vote far more than the Greens have ever done to the ALP.

And yet if he'd had the gumption to amputate , they'd be in the hole and he'd be untouchable.
But he didn't and now shall reap what he's sown

 

[Bollox]

Dutton speaks the truth...and of course that aint allowed.

Are you learning yet ?

22 of the last 33 terrorists and yet he shouldnt so much as mention the BLEEDING OBVIOUS.

Who else arnt we allowed to talk about ?..."Sudanese Crime Gangs" in Melbum ? Hows that working out ? Is that racist ?
Would it upset you less if we called them "Australian Crime Gangs of less than broad ethnic background, who are understandably having difficulty adapting to their new hostile environment where they get bullied and often suffer deep depression " ?

 

[SwampCreature]

Love to hear your thoughts Lebbo73

Abbottism/Trumpism has taken public cohesion back decades. It's legitimised ideas considered factually wrong and socially indefensible a very long time ago.

This is what happens when you ignore facts to suit your ideology or business interests; people who don't understand the nuances see it as licence to ignore norms willy nilly and the whole thing goes to s**t

And always - always - bites everyone involved on the arse

 

[SwampCreature]

Also * Peter Dutton btw

 

[Gough]

I think the rise of Trump has shown that it's not about being right, it's about winning. In a sense it's politics in it's purest form, but it's not good for society.

 

[Gough]

Also **** Peter Dutton btw

On the up side, imagine how well this crap is going down in magical western Sydney marginal land.

 

[Juddism]

Link to reffos ??


I know the italians were the OG boaties but struggling to link that article to the subject

no link..but Dutton talking about criminal behaviour as if Fraser was the only one to allow dodgy characters in to the country.

little hypocritical. drugs kill, yet LNP still allowed a known drug dealer and mafioso to gain residency..

 

[NSWCROW]

no link..but Dutton talking about criminal behaviour as if Fraser was the only one to allow dodgy characters in to the country.

little hypocritical. drugs kill, yet LNP still allowed a known drug dealer and mafioso to gain residency..

Sorry if i came across a tad abrupt , had just woken lol.

 

[Xsess]

Why in this thread title are illegal immigrants referred to as refugees?

 

[Lebbo73]

Love to hear your thoughts Lebbo73

Abbottism/Trumpism has taken public cohesion back decades. It's legitimised ideas considered factually wrong and socially indefensible a very long time ago.

This is what happens when you ignore facts to suit your ideology or business interests; people who don't understand the nuances see it as licence to ignore norms willy nilly and the whole thing goes to s**t

And always - always - bites everyone involved on the arse

I think the rise of Trump has shown that it's not about being right, it's about winning. In a sense it's politics in it's purest form, but it's not good for society.

What ideas are you saying are factually wrong and socially indefensible?
The reason why Trump and right-wing parties are gaining support is not rocket science. Your side has been allowed to push too far to the left. There needs to be a happy balance in the middle.
Letting people come into the country via the greed of illegal boat smugglers just cannot be alllowed to happen. The same about illegal immigrants in the US. Not to mention the 3 million illegals who mostly would of managed to vote for Clinton. The question remains though, how do you manage immigration properly without allowing the illegal boat trade to restart? The current approach is working but it has never sat comfortably with me. However, I don't want open borders.
The other problem with letting too many immigrants into the country is that it pushes wages down. Look at 7-Eleven servos! They are paying casuals $25 per hour and then demanding $11 cash back from the workers for each hour they work. They believe wages are too high. This problem is exacerbated when you allow immigrants to flood a country.
I saw PM Live last night where they said 22 out of the last 33 terrorists were Lebanese Muslims. I agree this is only a small percentage of the total Lebanese community, but it is still unacceptable for this to be happening. Why are the 2nd or 3rd generation Lebanese Muslims so hostile towards Australians?

 

[GreyCrow]

. Why are the 2nd or 3rd generation Lebanese Muslims so hostile towards Australians?

Maybe because they don't have jobs. I don't know. Going by your user name what do you think is the issue in the community?

 

[Maggie5]

Why are the 2nd or 3rd generation Lebanese Muslims so hostile towards Australians?

Good question, however to blame Fraser for 2nd and third generations is a big stretch.
We may as well deport Italians for the Mafia, Chinese for the Triads, Vietnamese for importing drugs or some other Asian, Greeks for the 'European back' and compensation, not sure about the sex trade maybe put it on all Asians.
See how ridiculous it gets?

The key is to understand why a group of people, usually young, get so disenfranchised that they find violence/terrorism attractive.
Haven't some Australians also become radicalized and gone to fight for Daesh?

 

[Lebbo73]

Maybe because they don't have jobs. I don't know. Going by your user name what do you think is the issue in the community?

I don't know. My great grandad left Lebanon to escape the oppression of Muslims.

 

[Chief]

Why in this thread title are illegal immigrants referred to as refugees?

Go away you dickhead.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[medusala]

It's legitimised ideas considered factually wrong and socially indefensible a very long time ago.

Sorry, could you please explain which ideas are factually wrong? Are you attempting to argue mass immigration is economically beneficial? If so I would very much like to hear your reasoning.

 

[medusala]

Good question, however to blame Fraser for 2nd and third generations is a big stretch.

Maggie much of the radicalisation issue in France and the UK is from third generation immigrants. Numerous polls have suggested they are far more extreme in their views than their parents. There may be various reasons for this ie Iraq war, Saudi funding/ takeover of mosques etc but i don't think the basic premise of the argument is disputed.

Nor is the fact that Fraser was told beforehand of issues likely to arise. Al Grassby was even worse.

 

[midorigreenwood]

The guardian again doesn't give much context outside of the "ohhh dutton is a raving racist etc"

The ABC does much better (saw this link in one of their current reports)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/leaked-document-outlines-changes-to-migration/7140952

specifically the libs believe Fraser made a mistake not because he let in lebanese muslims but because they were let in with very weak security and risk management checks (because it was a warzone and it was nearly impossible to get any accurate information). Without successful integration it led to the festering of extremism in parts of the community.

This ties to the current intake of syrian refugees and their desire not to repeat the same mistake again. Hence why the process has been so slow.

 

[Juddism]

I saw PM Live last night where they said 22 out of the last 33 terrorists were Lebanese Muslims. I agree this is only a small percentage of the total Lebanese community, but it is still unacceptable for this to be happening. Why are the 2nd or 3rd generation Lebanese Muslims so hostile towards Australians?

33 terror attacks in Australia?!?!? I must've been asleep, or we've redefined terrorism as we go, to suit the narrative.

I guess that means a 3rd of them are committed by white folks like me and you?

 

[midorigreenwood]

More context on the issue

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...e/news-story/0d504285023bc42b79c70b3b70f93c2e

The Lebanese Civil War of 1975-76 was under way when Fraser became prime minister. Christian Maronite and Orthodox Lebanese Christians had settled in Australia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and obtained some influence within the Labor Party and the Coalition. In late 1975, a group of influential Maronite Australians approached Fraser and his immigration minister, Michael Mackellar, with a view to the government allowing some Lebanese Christians into the country to join their relatives.

However, there was a potential problem. The Lebanese Christians in question could not be granted immediate access to Australia under the normal immigration categories. To facilitate entry, the Fraser government decided to categorise them as refugees — this despite the fact they were not refugees in the normal sense of the term. The Christians were not fleeing persecution but rather the difficulties of a civil war that involved clashes between Muslim and Christian groups.

In time, the Fraser government’s decision became known as the “Lebanon Concession”, meaning that any Lebanese granted access to Australia under this scheme had done so as part of a concession with respect to the prevailing rules. All they had to do was to state that they were fleeing the civil war and that they had a relative in Australia, plus meet some health checks.

As it turned out, most Christians did not want to leave Lebanon in 1975-76. Nor did most Muslims who lived in the capital city, Beirut. Instead, some Lebanese from deprived rural areas learned of Australia’s Lebanon Concession and decided to seek a better life in Australia. They comprised Sunnis from northern Lebanon and Shias from southern Lebanon.

The intending beneficiaries of the Lebanon Concession advised the Australian Immigration Department officials dispatched to the area that they were fleeing the civil war and had a relative in Australia. Few, if any, were rejected.

The cabinet records for the period indicate that the Fraser government quickly became concerned about the unintended consequences of the concession. In September 1976, cabinet considered a report that stated that the Immigration Department had been “completely overstretched” by the demand and had lost control of the program.

Put simply, Australian officials could not determine whether applicants seeking entry into Australia had suffered hardship in Lebanon. Moreover, there was no satisfactory criteria for assessing whether applicants had a family relationship in Australia. The report said “the Lebanese have an extended family concept” that included not only nephews, nieces and cousins but also “the residents of their home village whom they may not have seen in years”.

More seriously, the September 1976 report expressed concern about “the possibility that the conflicts, tensions and divisions within Lebanon will be transferred to Australia”. This was a reference to the tension between Sunni and Shia Muslims. The report stated that violence had occurred within the Immigration Department’s Nicosia office when applications for entry under the Lebanon Concession were being processed.

By November 1976, according to cabinet records, Mackellar was warning his colleagues about “the declining quality of many of the Lebanese people being sponsored for entry under the (Lebanon Concession) relaxed entry requirements”. Mackellar’s report to cabinet was blunt, to say the least: “A high percentage is illiterate. Personal hygiene is poor … The balance between Muslim and Christian applicants has risen to 90 per cent Muslim.

“Large families of up to 18 children are applying. Identification of applicants is complicated. Misrepresentations and deliberate attempts to conceal vital information are prolonging interviews … There is a high rate of nominations involving parents of working age and their dependants as well as brothers and sisters who, under the relaxed criteria applying during the emergency situation, are required to meet health and character standards only without any regard to their economic viability, personal qualities or capacity for successful settlement.”

Meeting on November 30, 1976, the Fraser cabinet junked the Lebanon Concession, less than a year after it had been created. Fraser and his colleagues decided that: “The normal selection criteria for Lebanese applicants be reintroduced immediately — ie economic viability, personal quality and ability to integrate criteria be applied to all applicants except spouses, dependent children and aged parents. All applicants will have to meet health and character requirements.”

This was an acknowledgment, at the highest level of government, that the Lebanon Concession had turned into a social policy disaster.

Fraser had been warned, soon after the experiment began, that the policy was ill-advised. Some leaders of the Lebanese Christian Maronite community in Australia told the prime minister that the decision to allow poorly educated people from the rural areas of Lebanon into Australia would prove unwise. The Maronites were met with a response along the lines of “well, you would say that, wouldn’t you?” Meaning that the Maronites were opposing the overwhelming majority of Lebanon Concession beneficiaries simply because they were Muslim.

This was a grossly unfair criticism — since, before 1975, some Muslim Lebanese Australians had settled successfully in Australia and there was no evidence of significant rivalry between those of the Christian and Muslim faiths.

The fact is that Maronite Australians, some of whom had been born in Lebanon, were more familiar with the people of rural Lebanon than Fraser and his key advisers. The Maronites were proved correct, but only when the consequences of the Lebanon Concession could not be wound back.

Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs, which the former prime minister co-wrote with academic Margaret Simons, contains just over a page on the Lebanon Concession, though the co-authors do not use this term. According to Fraser’s memoirs, 4000 Lebanese were allowed into Australia at the time and adds that “nine out of 10 were Muslim” whereas, previously, “migrants from Lebanon had been mainly Christian”. He added that “for every one person admitted as a refugee, three came in under family reunion programs”.

The statistics tell the story. In 1971 there were about 3400 Lebanese-born Muslims in Australia. A decade later, the figure was 15,600. Most of the Muslim Lebanese who came to Australia as a consequence of the Lebanon Concession settled in southwest Sydney — mainly in the suburbs of Lakemba and Arncliffe. The numbers grew substantially due to family reunions and high birthrates.

The Sunnis, primarily from northern Lebanon, frequented the Lakemba mosque. The Shia, primarily from southern Lebanon, frequented the Arncliffe mosque.

In 1982 Sheik Taj El-Din Hilaly arrived in Australia from Egypt on a tourist visa.

Those who came to Australia under the Lebanon Concession had the misfortune to arrive during a decline in manufacturing jobs. There has been a very high level of unemployment among Australians of Muslim Lebanese background since the mid-70s and many of this group did not obtain maximum benefit from the Australian education system.

Many who benefited from the Lebanon Concession — along with their children and grandchildren — have done well in Australia. But not all. Last Tuesday, Haset Sali (founding president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils) told the ABC AM program that “if people are not prepared to respect our basic laws then they should certainly not be given refugee status and certainly not be given citizenship in Australia”.

The consequences of the Lebanon Concession did not turn on religion. The Turks, who began arriving in Australia in large numbers in the mid-60s, have settled successfully. As have numerous Muslims from India, North Africa and Southeast Asia, along with many Lebanese. Unfortunately, a small number of the children and grandchildren of these Lebanese Muslims have been attracted to extremism, others to crime.

As Mackellar conceded in November 1976, the Lebanon Concession was a flawed immigration program. It’s little wonder Fraser did not want to remember it.

 

[SwampCreature]

Sorry, could you please explain which ideas are factually wrong? Are you attempting to argue mass immigration is economically beneficial? If so I would very much like to hear your reasoning.

Hah hah, good try. But I am not getting in to an argument over undisputed* facts on the S&RP with you.

Here's a link you'll ignore.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...ts-may-be-our-greatest-economic-asset/6409042

*sadly, in a post-truth world this word has lost all meaning

 

[Gough]

Let's call it for what it is, racist dog whistling to appease the ON crowd, that has been poorly executed, and left Dutton, not for the first time, looking like a bit of a dick.

 

[Maggie5]

Let's call it for what it, is racist dog whistling to appease the ON crowd, that has been poorly executed, and left Dutton, not for the first time, looking like a bit of a dick.

That's it in a nutshell!
Here I was thinking the terrorists were Syrian, now I have to switch my fear to my next door neighbour who is a third generation Lebonese.
Am I doing it right?

 

[Gough]

I'm more concerned about my wog mate who makes grappa avoiding the excise tax, and costing the budget. It was probably a mistake to let his grandparents in.

 

[Maggie5]

Maggie much of the radicalisation issue in France and the UK is from third generation immigrants. Numerous polls have suggested they are far more extreme in their views than their parents. There may be various reasons for this ie Iraq war, Saudi funding/ takeover of mosques etc but i don't think the basic premise of the argument is disputed.

Nor is the fact that Fraser was told beforehand of issues likely to arise. Al Grassby was even worse.

Meds, I know you and I disagree on quite a few things but to point the finger at Fraser is ludicrous. I grew up with a number of those first generation and they were wonderful, hard working people. Great contributors to the economy and food culture of Australia.

To expect Fraser or anyone else to know that the 2nd and 3rd generations of Lebanese people would produce 22 people (out of 100,000?) that would eventually become terrorists is truly laughable.

This is dog whistling at its worst and feeding into ON's agenda and Islamaphobes.

Here I was thinking that my grandchildren (3rd gen European) may become doctors or lawyers.
Should I be concerned about what influences may change them although given their Catholic religion, may turn out okay?

See how silly Dutton's comment are?