Wednesday 12 November, 2003: Is Australia too tough on refugees?
Yes: 15186 (32%)
No: 32799 (68%)

From the Nine MSN news poll. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/voteresults.asp)

Fifth question down.

Now please stop calling me a racist. I'm part aborigine for chrissake and my wife is Japanese. She works for IBM and I certainly don't consider her an inferior race. I have an opinion and no amount of racism accusation is going to change it.

make a few pronouncements, perhaps some policy statements
ghassan will be happy to discuss em with you

:D

roadkill
don't be afraid to speak up because certain crackheads would like to open floodgates to a tsunami of refugees

spooks and DR. would you like to sponsor all the refugees that come over?
immigration is good. refugees, LEGITIMATE refugees, should go thru the refugee filtering process.... not sneak in to the land and syphone off public funds.. if they're real refugees they got nothing to worry about.

There is no tsunami of refugees, just a few thousand that have been in concentration camps for years. All of them are LIGITIMATE refugees by agreements that Australia has signed with the UN.

Why don’t they have Immigration papers? Because they are fucking refugees you blowhard! Australia doesn’t have embays in every region of the world, especially the kind that refugees might want to flee from. There is no way for them to start the immigration process by Australia’s standards, but they all have right to asylum in Australia in accordance with agreements that Australia has signed.

learn some definitions
there is a difference b/w immigrant and refugees

i might be mistaken here... but isn't a legal definition of a refugee is of someone who's made it to the land?

i.e. if the "refugees" don't make it to mainland Australia, (not one of the surrounding islands) they're not technically refugees yet and therefore the "refugee laws" do not apply to them

There is no tsunami of refugees
according to your evaluation.
from what i've read about the issue with Australia, they've got quite a problem.
whether it's only "a couple of thousands" or more... who is going to support them? tell me, do you pay taxes?

i was also speaking about border jumpers and line jumpers in general.

learn some definitions
there is a difference b/w immigrant and refugees
:eek: bahhh..... really? [/sarcasm]

Is Australia too tough on refugees?
If Australia was 'too tough on refugees' it wouldn't be full of white folks, would it?
Dee Cee

Originally posted by otheadp
:eek: bahhh..... really? [/sarcasm]

kid, i will flay you alive, boil you in oil, chain you to a rock and let vultures tear out your liver, and cut you up into small pieces with sharp knives.

Hey spookz, that sounds like what I did to a pregnant refugee the other day, pretty awesome huh?

Ok, I will discuss refugees now so this post won't be deleted again, and spookz will finally get my meaningful message.
Ahem...
Refugees are weak man, wtf? We don't need no damn refugees, we have enough.
Thank you.

Originally posted by roadkill
Wednesday 12 November, 2003: Is Australia too tough on refugees?
Yes: 15186 (32%)
No: 32799 (68%)
Yes, I live in Australia (PR) and AU has one particular child here(Chinese) who was born as a second child (and the family did qualify for refugee status) in detention - yet this child lived his first SIX years in a refugee camp. That’s the longest recorded time of any country. Now think, this kid is going to have a refugee camp as his earliest memories and maybe forever have his childhood tainted like this.

I do think that many refugees are looking to come to AU for monetary reasons and that’s maybe not good enough. I mean it took me 4 years before I got PR. So there must be some process in place - but this process should be much quicker.

Lastly, children should not be kept in camps at all - little own with adults – that’s just sick and that is what AU does. This at the minimum should change.

so if a refugee man and a refugee woman want to get out of the camp, all they have to do is have sex and make a baby.
then the baby will become an automatic resident or citizen or whatever (by your logic)..and it would be immoral of course to separate the child from the parents so they'd have to come too. now, they have a status and may bring their entire extended families too.

Hey. Why not just get rid of international borders altogether then. Rewrite the maps so every country is called Squatsville and build bridges between them. We can all burn our passports and dance with joined hands as we watch numerous viral infections walk in. If you are into anarchy of biblical proportions then it should be a blast.

The UN can kiss my ass.

The UN can kiss my ass
lol

don't be incouraging any illuminaties here :D

No country can be "too tough" on these economic refugees. They are only coming "over" to sponge off the west. There is no reason for these people to leave their own countries as there is no "persecution". Even Vietnam is a great place to live under its current regime. Spongers plain and simple.

Originally posted by otheadp
so if a refugee man and a refugee woman want to get out of the camp, all they have to do is have sex and make a baby.
then the baby will become an automatic resident or citizen or whatever (by your logic)..and it would be immoral of course to separate the child from the parents so they'd have to come too. now, they have a status and may bring their entire extended families too. not if you process a little quicker than 9 months. 2-4 months is plenty enough time to do the paper work and determine if they will stay or be returned

Originally posted by Red Devil
No country can be "too tough" on these economic refugees. They are only coming "over" to sponge off the west. There is no reason for these people to leave their own countries as there is no "persecution". Even Vietnam is a great place to live under its current regime. Spongers plain and simple. I agree that "economic refugees" should simply be returned - however, North Koreans should be given assylym and maybe some Tibetians.

Originally posted by Red Devil
No country can be "too tough" on these economic refugees. They are only coming "over" to sponge off the west. There is no reason for these people to leave their own countries as there is no "persecution". Even Vietnam is a great place to live under its current regime. Spongers plain and simple.


Originally posted by Michael

I agree that "economic refugees" should simply be returned
Why should someone's place of birth determine their future options?
Why are you more entitled to these options simply because you were born with them?

Originally posted by jps
Why should someone's place of birth determine their future options?
Why are you more entitled to these options simply because you were born with them?
Hypocrite.
You have no problem reaping in the benefits of being born into human society. And I'd bet rats are shunned from your dinner table.
Correct?
Then you are a hypocrite.

Originally posted by jps
Why should someone's place of birth determine their future options?
Why are you more entitled to these options simply because you were born with them? Can I come and take your house?

Why should you have that house?

There simply is no reason why ANY county in the world can not be prosperous. It completely depends on the culture and the people. Take Singapore for example – absolutely no resources other than people willing to do hard work - yet a very modern and rich society. Its neighbors on the other hand are dirt arse poor. By your logic, Singapore should open it’s doors allowing mass migration of people. I can only imagine that in 20 years there’d be no difference between Singapore and it’s neighbors. That is – I’d bet Singapore would be dirt arse poor.

These boat people happened to be born in Singapore when it was a back-water village – they worked hard to create a better place – they passed that hard work onto their children. So I’d say Singaporeans do have the right to determine who comes and who goes. Malaysia and Indonesia are right next door. Both have 100s of times the resources. If they wanted to make their life better they should do so by working on their own country - not by moving to a rich neighbor.

You work hard, you leave your children something. Maybe a home and a nice yard. I live up the road. My house is a shit hole. Oh, I could fix it up but my old-man is a bastard and I really don’t have the Gump to do much about it. So I see your nice looking house. How unfair is that! Your kids had you – and you gave them so much. I had it hard. I think I’ll just move right in to your place and make myself at home :) Because that’s what you’re advocating.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Hypocrite.
You have no problem reaping in the benefits of being born into human society. And I'd bet rats are shunned from your dinner table.
Correct?
Then you are a hypocrite. :D too funny

Ha Ha you boyz make me laugh!
A lot of you are Aussies and Americans right?
Condemning your own ancestors as immigrant scum now are we?
Whatever happened to family loyalty?
Perhaps you should all move back to Europe where you belong.

I can't wait for that day of first contact when those little green men stand on the Whitehouse lawn and say.....

" People of Earth. It brings us great pleasure to announce that we have discovered your planet. It will now join the great galactic society. We will make use of you goods and services as long as they are cheap enough and will bring many intergalactic tourists to litter your streets.
Unfortunatley we consider the existance of money to be a sure indicator of a world living in poverty therefore Galactic Council rules ban any travel outside of this system by the disadvantaged people of your planet. (Yes that means all of you) You will never visit our homeworld or sample our astro dinners. We ask you to support our stance.
NO! To immigrant scum!
Thank you for your time.
Xxvyezi II"

Don't cry kiddies we all know that aliens are nicer than us really.
Dee Cee

Originally posted by Michael
Can I come and take your house?

Why should you have that house?

There simply is no reason why ANY county in the world can not be prosperous. It completely depends on the culture and the people. Take Singapore for example – absolutely no resources other than people willing to do hard work - yet a very modern and rich society. Its neighbors on the other hand are dirt arse poor. By your logic, Singapore should open it’s doors allowing mass migration of people. I can only imagine that in 20 years there’d be no difference between Singapore and it’s neighbors. That is – I’d bet Singapore would be dirt arse poor.

I didn't advocate allowing immigrants to seize people's houses, I just said they should be allowed in.
ah the ld "poor people are lazy" argument.
The fact is one of the reasons the standard of living is high in many western countries is that we can rely on cheap labor in other countries that have repressive regimes, no labor laws, no environmental laws, and no means of escape(like immigration). Countrie's will not inevitably become prosperous if their citizens are hard-working. How could you possibly believe that if people in under-developed countries just worked harder at their sweatshops their coutry could become economically viable? Do you really think that the reason that some countries are richer than others is that its citizens are innately harder workers?

Originally posted by jps
I didn't advocate allowing immigrants to seize people's houses, I just said they should be allowed in.
ah the ld "poor people are lazy" argument.
The fact is one of the reasons the standard of living is high in many western countries is that we can rely on cheap labor in other countries that have repressive regimes, no labor laws, no environmental laws, and no means of escape(like immigration). Country’s will not inevitably become prosperous if their citizens are hard-working. How could you possibly believe that if people in under-developed countries just worked harder at their sweatshops their country could become economically viable? Do you really think that the reason that some countries are richer than others is that its citizens are innately harder workers? I didn't say that I thought people in poor countries were lazy. Some are and some are not – people in general that is.

That doesn’t mean that the culture (government style, belief systems, etcetera) in these countries does not contribute to the poor conditions they are living in – I believe it’s the main reason.

Lets face it – throughout history most of mankind have lived in the dredges. Rome at its highest was pilled high with poor. Most people lived like shit. Now, relatively recently, some countries have managed to put in place a system that allows for a relatively successful middle class. That does not mean that these same countries are “making” these other countries poor. They were poor already. Does the “West” hold these countries down? If that were the case how did Japan succeed? How did Singapore succeed? The “West” controlled Russia’s economy? China’s? India’s? The simple fact about the “West/Far East” is it has a number of factors that have made it successful: those being governmental style, work ethic, capitol management, educational system, separation of church and state, freedom of expression (in theory), etcetera.

I would also disagree as to the high living standard in the West being tied to the working conditions in 3rd world countries. Yes it probably lines the pockets of a few millionaires at the top – but you and I are still paying $150 per pair of shoes. That is a big misnomer. By that rational you must think that the successfulness of the Japanese in the 1960-80s caused India to become poorer? The Philippines? Indonesia? China? Russia? OR were they already poor? Did they themselves run their own damn economies into the ground? I mean Japan was the “top dog” in 1985-8 so they must have been single-handedly holding down all these 3rd world nations. No I think you’ll agree, they were working long hard hours, managing well, governing well, etcetera. So tell me – what country did Japan exploit to come to have the high standard of living they enjoy? What about the Singaporeans? Who did they exploit?

They simply worked hard and managed their capitol properly.

What of lazy people? I would say that the average Japanese works much harder in primary school than the average American. I’d say the average Japanese works much harder than their American counterparts in industry and Americans (on average) work more hours per year than the average German. That is reflected in the fact that Japanese have little natural resources and must work hard to utilize what they have - people. And the Americans tend to have bigger homes and a second car while Germans tend to have smaller homes, single cars and enjoy a nice holiday once a year. So yes, work is one facet. Another is motivation and people management. But by working hard, these countries are not “taking” away from another country’s prosperity. You can’t take away something they haven’t achieved.

What? Do you think that America is responsible for India’s 3rd world shit-arse dirt poor living condition? China’s? Russia’s? Iran’s? Or could it be that something in the equation is missing – like government style …freedom . . . etc.. ? Isn’t the truth of it that most average people have been poor for the last 5000 years and are living how one would historically expect .

Exploited? You should have read the article of these shoe factories in Indonesia. A bunch of Americans and Europeans and Aussies went over there – raised hell, got the people working in the factories pissed off at their employers and subsequently refused to work until they were paid the equivalent of what an Aussie would make and subsequently the companies pulled out leaving the people (who were the highest paid in the town) out of work. So the people are fucked and pissed and out of work. Because of the crap government there is no incentive to start business and so the people are out in the cold. So what do we find out now? Those who financed the rally were unions in Au, USA, and Eu to shut down the Indonesian factories and give them a bit more work for a couple years while the Corporations build in China.

So keep that in mind.

As to international standards – yes I agree. I agree that we need some international standards on environment as well as standards for work conditions. And I think preventing instantaneous transfer of moneys out of poor countries should be stopped TODAY! THAT is a big problem we need to fix now. But yes, I wish the Swiss wouldn’t store gold from Kim Jung Il’s slave camps, I wish GM didn’t dump into the oceans. But on this front we can, by voting with our wallets, make a difference. So here I do agree with you.

What does this have to do with refugees? Simply this; if they are persecuted then they have a case that can be accessed (in a timely manner). Say a Tibetan or North Korean. If they are from Indonesia or South Detroit and want a good job living in Tokyo – well they better bring a skill that some Japanese corporation needs/wants, do a job some Japanese doesn’t want, or tough luck go home and create a Tokyo right there and watch how quick you are to stop someone from taking all that 3 generations of your folks have worked like hell to achieve.
:D

Originally posted by Michael

That doesn’t mean that the culture (government style, belief systems, etcetera) in these countries does not contribute to the poor conditions they are living in – I believe it’s the main reason.
I agree that the government certainly has a great deal to do with it, but the governments of many underdeveloped countries are propped up by(if not outright puppets of) industrialized countries with a vested interest in keeping those countries underdeveloped. Even those that are not are under pressure from global business organizations like the WTO.


Originally posted by Michael
Lets face it – throughout history most of mankind have lived in the dredges. Rome at its highest was pilled high with poor. Most people lived like shit. Now, relatively recently, some countries have managed to put in place a system that allows for a relatively successful middle class. That does not mean that these same countries are “making” these other countries poor. They were poor already. Does the “West” hold these countries down? If that were the case how did Japan succeed? How did Singapore succeed? The “West” controlled Russia’s economy? China’s? India’s? The simple fact about the “West/Far East” is it has a number of factors that have made it successful: those being governmental style, work ethic, capitol management, educational system, separation of church and state, freedom of expression (in theory), etcetera. Another way to look at it is that most of mankind still lived in the dredges, but our global economy has made it possible for them to be kept seperate from the chosen few.
The west did control these country's economies until relatively recently, and exploited them for it's own gain. Now they have nominal sovereignty but have been crippled by years of foreign rule and continuing economic exploitation.


Originally posted by Michael
I would also disagree as to the high living standard in the West being tied to the working conditions in 3rd world countries. Yes it probably lines the pockets of a few millionaires at the top – but you and I are still paying $150 per pair of shoes. That is a big misnomer. By that rational you must think that the successfulness of the Japanese in the 1960-80s caused India to become poorer? The Philippines? Indonesia? China? Russia? OR were they already poor? Did they themselves run their own damn economies into the ground? I mean Japan was the “top dog” in 1985-8 so they must have been single-handedly holding down all these 3rd world nations. No I think you’ll agree, they were working long hard hours, managing well, governing well, etcetera. So tell me – what country did Japan exploit to come to have the high standard of living they enjoy? What about the Singaporeans? Who did they exploit? First they were colonized, then they were kept poor. For your argument to be true you'd have to assume that all these countries have been poor and then a few pulled themselves up. This is not the case. Historically, many of these underdeveloped countries have been quite prosperous, and might today have achieved the same success as the industrialized west, it is only after colonization and the return to self rule that they have become poor.




Originally posted by Michael
Exploited? You should have read the article of these shoe factories in Indonesia. A bunch of Americans and Europeans and Aussies went over there – raised hell, got the people working in the factories pissed off at their employers and subsequently refused to work until they were paid the equivalent of what an Aussie would make and subsequently the companies pulled out leaving the people (who were the highest paid in the town) out of work. So the people are fucked and pissed and out of work. Because of the crap government there is no incentive to start business and so the people are out in the cold. So what do we find out now? Those who financed the rally were unions in Au, USA, and Eu to shut down the Indonesian factories and give them a bit more work for a couple years while the Corporations build in China. Of course, if one country raises their standards the corporations will move on. Open the borders however and they will soon be unable to find anyplace where they can exploit people's misfortune.


Originally posted by Michael
What does this have to do with refugees? Simply this; if they are persecuted then they have a case that can be accessed (in a timely manner). Say a Tibetan or North Korean. If they are from Indonesia or South Detroit and want a good job living in Tokyo – well they better bring a skill that some Japanese corporation needs/wants, do a job some Japanese doesn’t want, or tough luck go home and create a Tokyo right there and watch how quick you are to stop someone from taking all that 3 generations of your folks have worked like hell to achieve.
:D How do you define persecution? In most countries where this exploitation occurs people would be persectuted for starting a union.

I do not think that "poor people" are necessarily lazy, thats a falsehood but are not all of human kind basically lazy? And whilst we are on it, greedy too.

Here in England the immigrant situation is out of control due to the wimpish attitudes of the successive governments who are too scared of foreign opinion to do anything about it. Our governments are too liberal. Many many countries have made stringent immigration laws and rightly so.

Latest reports indicate Austria have passed some hard laws regarding foreigners in their country. This is only right. They must protect their own. As we must do, as the USA must do - its only right.

We have a homeless situation here and its an embarrassment to decent people in general. We have a situation where these "illegals" are freely given housing which are "not available" when home grown residents want them. I am not against helping out the planet's poor - but at what price?

I am not a well off person. I work average 60 hours a week to keep my family in relative health and well fed. I strongly object to the government(s) taking my hard earned money in tax. Tax on what I earn, tax on what I spend and then find they are giving it away to people who have no right to it.

Angry too? Damn right I am.

Originally posted by jps
I agree that the government certainly has a great deal to do with it, but the governments of many underdeveloped countries are propped up by(if not outright puppets of) industrialized countries with a vested interest in keeping those countries underdeveloped. Even those that are not are under pressure from global business organizations like the WTO.Could you give an example?

That is, where one country is purposely trying to keep another country underdeveloped? How do they go about doing that? What is the benefit?

Sure you could say the USA wants to keep North Korea underdeveloped - in the sense that if NK continues developing an atomic weapon the USA won’t send food aid or lend money. But that is a precarious link. Of course you said “propped up” so that isn’t going to fit the bill. And I don't see a problem with the USA restricting who it does and does not do business with. These country's have been around doing whatever well before Amercia came into being. They'll be continuing to do so well after.

I know Japan tends to try and build up other country’s economies in the hopes they will one day be able to afford Japanese high end products. Japan usually isn’t so kind as to just give them money (it is the largest creditor nation), they tend to loan money for Japanese made infrastructure – but hey it’s their money. So again, I don’t see what you are talking about?

Is the West trying to “hold down” the Mexicans to get that cheap farm labor? Or is it that Mexico hasn’t pulled it’s finger out and got their own act together? Should we invade and show them how to run it? Maybe the way we think is best?

Is purchasing oil from kings of Saudi Arabia the "propping up" you were talking about? The Arabians have had kings for millennia. Well before the discovery of the Americas by the Europeans. And The House of Saud has been ruling the peninsula well before America was even united and certainly before America was a world player. At that time our trade w/ Arabia was probably restricted to purchasing slaves from the stolen peoples of E. Africa.

Is it your contention that we should change the way Arabia is ruled? Maybe model it after ourselves? I mean we are the most powerful country – maybe everyone should just run their country the way we see fit? Is this what you are proposing? Because I think a few people in WA are realizing it isn’t as easy as you’d think. And IMO it isn’t our place to do so anyhow.

'Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

'The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

'The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.'


enoch raps (http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/rivers_of_blood.htm)

Originally posted by jps
Another way to look at it is that most of mankind still lived in the dredges, but our global economy has made it possible for them to be kept seperate from the chosen few.
The west did control these country's economies until relatively recently, and exploited them for it's own gain. Now they have nominal sovereignty but have been crippled by years of foreign rule and continuing economic exploitation. The rulers may have changed for a brief moment (a few hundred years) but this isn’t much time compared to the 2-3 thousand (and in China’s case 5000) years of self rule. In all that time the situation has not changed for the average person. So when you say “crippled” you insinuate that there was once and athlete. That just isn’t so. The people ruling these countries may have changed (briefly) but the life of your average Joe-Shmoe hasn’t changed one bit.

Let’s not forget that one of the biggest suppliers of Africana slaves were the W. Africans themselves. They’d been selling them for centuries before the Europeans started to buy en-mass and continued to sell them to the Ottomans and Americans after the Europeans quit buying them.

The situation basically is this. A few countries in the West got this clean piece of land. This allowed ANY people to become quite rich. Whereas in other parts of the world, due to the countless wars, really only a family name or tie could elevate you from the filth. Just because these few counties got their act together and got “rich” (what ever that means) does not imply it has been at the expense of making these other peoples poor. They already were poor. And have been for millennia.

It appears to me that you want to go out and tell these other nations this: Hey, you suck, let me come over there and run the place for you! :)

I mean the simple fact is these countries have been run like this for millennia – is it your place to change them? Modeling them after who? America? Maybe most people don’t want that? A few might, but as you can see (Vietnam war, Korean war, Iraq, etcetera) MOST people don’t want to have another person come in and tell them how they should run their own country.

Look the North Koreans, with massive help of the Chinese, kicked major Americana butt and they got their little North Korea. And it turned into the shit hole the Americans always said it would. So maybe it’d been better if we’d just traded with the Koreans as they were and left them alone to do their own thing? Maybe they could have (like China) learned from example. Instead of having millions and millions dead we should have just left well enough alone.

So again, yes a few people want out. They don’t want to make the changes needed in their own countries. The family heritage is just to much – so they want to go to a nice “prosperous” country. Well to bad. Like I said if you have a skill maybe you can migrate to Tokyo but if you don’t, well don’t expect the Japanese to let you just park your sweet arse down and enjoy the fruits of their labor. By that reasoning maybe we should have moved every Japanese after WWII into CA. I mean they’re never going to fit their own place up! Right? :)

Originally posted by Michael
The rulers may have changed for a brief moment (a few hundred years) but this isn’t much time compared to the 2-3 thousand (and in China’s case 5000) years of self rule. In all that time the situation has not changed for the average person. So when you say “crippled” you insinuate that there was once and athlete. That just isn’t so. The people ruling these countries may have changed (briefly) but the life of your average Joe-Shmoe hasn’t changed one bit.

Let’s not forget that one of the biggest suppliers of Africana slaves were the W. Africans themselves. They’d been selling them for centuries before the Europeans started to buy en-mass and continued to sell them to the Ottomans and Americans after the Europeans quit buying them.
The thing is, while the western powers were becoming rich and increasing the standard of living for their citizens they were engaged in all sorts of harmful acts, like slavery and colonization.


Originally posted by Michael
The situation basically is this. A few countries in the West got this clean piece of land. This allowed ANY people to become quite rich. Whereas in other parts of the world, due to the countless wars, really only a family name or tie could elevate you from the filth. Just because these few counties got their act together and got “rich” (what ever that means) does not imply it has been at the expense of making these other peoples poor. They already were poor. And have been for millennia.[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael
What clean piece of land? Europe got rich in part by colonizing the rest of the world and shipping its wealth back home, but even if the western world did not make poor countries poor, they are certainly working to keep them that way now.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Michael
[B]It appears to me that you want to go out and tell these other nations this: Hey, you suck, let me come over there and run the place for you! :)
I mean the simple fact is these countries have been run like this for millennia – is it your place to change them? [b]Modeling them after who? America? Maybe most people don’t want that? A few might, but as you can see (Vietnam war, Korean war, Iraq, etcetera) MOST people don’t want to have another person come in and tell them how they should run their own country. No, I'm saying people who don't like the way their country is being run should be allowed to leave.



Originally posted by Michael
Look the North Koreans, with massive help of the Chinese, kicked major Americana butt and they got their little North Korea. And it turned into the shit hole the Americans always said it would. So maybe it’d been better if we’d just traded with the Koreans as they were and left them alone to do their own thing? Maybe they could have (like China) learned from example. Instead of having millions and millions dead we should have just left well enough alone. so north korea is poor because its people don't work to make it better and not because we have sanctions against them?


Originally posted by Michael
So again, yes a few people want out. They don’t want to make the changes needed in their own countries. The family heritage is just to much – so they want to go to a nice “prosperous” country. Well to bad. Like I said if you have a skill maybe you can migrate to Tokyo but if you don’t, well don’t expect the Japanese to let you just park your sweet arse down and enjoy the fruits of their labor. By that reasoning maybe we should have moved every Japanese after WWII into CA. I mean they’re never going to fit their own place up! Right? :) Why are you more entitled to the fruits of others labor in your country than anyone else simply because you were born there? Why are people who only want the privilidges that you got by birthright somehow doing something wrong?

Originally posted by jps
Of course, if one country raises their standards the corporations will move on. Open the borders however and they will soon be unable to find anyplace where they can exploit people's misfortune. More than likely your living standard will drop as you begin to work for a much lower wage as massive numbers of immigrants flood your streets. Then will come the resentment that people in your country will have against these immigrants taking their jobs, working for 1/5th the amount. Then the gangs. Street wars. All hell will break lose. You yourself will be bitching if you find yourself competing for work within your own country at 1/5 what you think you should earn. What? Do you think the companies will be paying the same as they do now? Haaa! Too funny!! You know what – I bet you’d find a lot of companies would like to open the boarders. Let in as many people as possible. Hell you’d be able to double Australia’s population in 3 months maybe quadruple it in a year. Wow, what a wonderful world we’d be living in! :)

If you consider it your job to change the world – well then I think a number of people pushing for Vietnam or the Korean wars would be in your boat. A lot of people had good intentions. In retrospect – looking at how shit North Korea and how corrupt Vietnam has become – maybe they had a case. But I’m in the boat of people that says – leave well enough alone. Trade. Change by example. Give a helping hand to those that are willing to help themselves. Yes, protect the environment – do so by VOTING with your wallet. And I certainly have no problem with food aid.


Originally posted by jps
How do you define persecution? In most countries where this exploitation occurs people would be persectuted for starting a union. True, and we don’t live in a perfect world. And that’s not going to change. Hell, look at what a shit-hole America has become. I think it’d be better to worry about one’s own back yard before worrying about cleaning someone else’s. You seem to think that opening the door is going to fix all these problems - but what you seem to be missing is the fact that it will create many more.

This sort of sentiment kind of sounds like the argument for going to war against the Iraqi’s. Let’s face it; it takes a good three generations before people are willing to topple a dictator. So sometimes we just have to wait. And we certainly don’t have to trade with them. You know, I hear a lot about how America killed millions of Iraqis because of the sanctions. The truth of it is, Iraqi Kurds were living quite well under those sanctions. They have computerized schools, grocery stores with scanners – basically some parts look like any-old-town USA. Add to that, Iraq got along fine for 5000 years before America’s colonization and subsequent trade and you’ll find that it may have been the Regime that killed millions of Iraqis.

As for the “Unions”, stop buying “Made in America” products that are made in sweat shops in the American “Territories” (not States). Stop buying from companies that source labor in countries that crack down on unions. I mean, if you don’t think you can make a pair of shoe for $180 US dollars right in your own back yard you’re nuts. Go to the internet – you’ll certainly find plenty of sites that track down these companies. And because of that, a number of companies are beginning to change. That’s the best way to change. And frankly, if people don’t give a flying fuck, and you’re effort goes for not, well that’s just the world you live in.

Let me leave with this last example: I have a lot of Chinese and Japanese friends. The Chinese love to talk about Nanjing and how they got fucked by the Japanese. A sort of give me sympathy story. Sometimes you’ll hear Japanese say they were just trying to bring the Chinese into the 21st century – make it better for them. I mean look at how good Korea is doing sort of reasoning. But, the funny thing, do my Chinese friends give a crap that they're doing the same only to Tibetans? No way – they say “we need that land to buffer India and to farm! And we’re doing them a bunch of good – showing them how they should run their country. We’re actually helping them quite a bit!” And you know what, as many Chinese as possible can more to Tibet. And there are less and less jobs for Tibetians. Life for them is beginning to suck arse and the culture they used to have is going going gone - kind of a mini open-door policy. But it's good to allow people to freely move where they want!

Where have I heard that before? :)

Originally posted by jps
Why are you more entitled to the fruits of others labor in your country than anyone else simply because you were born there? Why are people who only want the privilidges that you got by birthright somehow doing something wrong? Yes - it's a birthright thing. That’s call society.
No they are not doing something wrong. That’s called bad luck.
However, much like your poor-as grandparents or great grandparents, if they want something they can build it. If they want to change their situation they should change it.

You seem to have this idea that a nice wealthy society was JUST there always. No, people worked and keep working for it. So that’s basically what these other countries will have to do as well. If they don’t - then that’s their tough luck.


Originally posted by jps
The thing is, while the western powers were becoming rich and increasing the standard of living for their citizens they were engaged in all sorts of harmful acts, like slavery and colonization. That’s not true. Just look at Japan. As a matter of fact – Japan refutes all of this nonsense. If the Japanese, with no natural resources, can pull their finger out of their respective arse – well then a country such as Indonesia, with it’s plentiful resources, should have no problems.

So the solution is to get their act together and fix their own country. Kind of like Singapore and Japan did and China is now doing.

I can't wait for that day of first contact when those little green men stand on the Whitehouse lawn and say.....

" People of Earth. It brings us great pleasure to announce that we have discovered your planet. It will now join the great galactic society. We will make use of you goods and services as long as they are cheap enough and will bring many intergalactic tourists to litter your streets.
Unfortunatley we consider the existance of money to be a sure indicator of a world living in poverty therefore Galactic Council rules ban any travel outside of this system by the disadvantaged people of your planet. (Yes that means all of you) You will never visit our homeworld or sample our astro dinners. We ask you to support our stance.
NO! To immigrant scum!
Thank you for your time.
Xxvyezi II"

Don't cry kiddies we all know that aliens are nicer than us really.
Dee Cee

How do we know that? You've met a few have you? I think Aliens will be a lot worse than that. It's a dog eat dog universe and softies always come last. I don't blame illegal immigrants for trying to come in. Thats their survival instinct kicking in. Take anything you can. Gamble what you can afford on a better life for you and your children. Everyone wants more. We on the other hand must think of OUR wellbeing and OUR childrens wellbeing. Our countries are not social welfare departments with endless resources to take care of the underpriviledged. We try to help some but cannot afford to help everyone. For every queue jumper who gets in there is a legitimate refugee in the waiting list who doesn't. We have to take care of ourselves first, those we deem deserving second and queue jumpers not at all. We shouldn't even pay for returning them. All ships carrying illegals should be simply towed back to where they came from and sunk after offloading the human cargo. If we turned every person lose from a camp every 2 months they would be back here in another boat the following week. Atleast in camps they aren't costing us transportation again and again.

"You seem to have this idea that a nice wealthy society was JUST there always. No, people worked and keep working for it. So that’s basically what these other countries will have to do as well. If they don’t - then that’s their tough luck. "

You seem to be simplifying it a little. A lot of thesse countries are trying to work for it, but are in such a mess they cant get anywhere. Furthermore, a lot are so far in hock to us, they cant get out of it.

"More than likely your living standard will drop as you begin to work for a much lower wage as massive numbers of immigrants flood your streets. "

No, thats happening already as our jobs go bye bye. And I wonder why you people never stop to think, who ultimately benefits from all this? Who likes getting in cheap labour?

"As for the “Unions”, stop buying “Made in America” products that are made in sweat shops in the American “Territories” (not States). Stop buying from companies that source labor in countries that crack down on unions. I mean, if you don’t think you can make a pair of shoe for $180 US dollars right in your own back yard you’re nuts. Go to the internet – you’ll certainly find plenty of sites that track down these companies. And because of that, a number of companies are beginning to change. That’s the best way to change. And frankly, if people don’t give a flying fuck, and you’re effort goes for not, well that’s just the world you live in."

On the other hand I can agree with this.

Originally posted by guthrie
You seem to be simplifying it a little. A lot of theses countries are trying to work for it, but are in such a mess they cant get anywhere. Furthermore, a lot are so far in hock to us, they cant get out of it.I agree with you and have no problem with debt relief of some sort – eliminating interest or cancellation of the debt entirely. Also, when the world bank/monetary fund/USA lends moneys to corrupt dictators (ex: Indonesia’s past loan etcetera) and find that these dictators have squandered the money. Well, I don’t think the burden should be on the people to pay it back. They didn’t get any money so why should they have to pay? I say, if you lend to someone unscrupulous then that’s to bad for you. Maybe next time you’ll keep an eye on where these moneys are going – aka Switzerland (one of the reasons I think large amounts of capitol should not be able to be transferred out of poor countries into wealthy private bank accounts instantaneously, that money should be checked first – say a 2 week limit on these huge transfers).

Nevertheless, the solution isn’t to up and leave the country it’s to stay and fix it.

Originally posted by guthrie
[B"More than likely your living standard will drop as you begin to work for a much lower wage as massive numbers of immigrants flood your streets. "

No, thats happening already as our jobs go bye bye. And I wonder why you people never stop to think, who ultimately benefits from all this? Who likes getting in cheap labour?[/B] And this then means what exactly in regards to immigration?

Well, why is there always seems to be a ready market for cheap immigrant labour? Why do a lot of them end up in sweatshops?

I suggest placing minefields along Australia's coast
That goes for Spain, Italy and Portugal also

Originally posted by guthrie
Well, why is there always seems to be a ready market for cheap immigrant labour? Why do a lot of them end up in sweatshops? Because businessmen are unscrupulous. However, like I said if you vote with your wallet then that’s when you’ll see some change. These people can change ther situation. They do not need to work in sweatshops. They did get along for 5000 years prior to sweatshops - I'm sure they can get along without that sort of work.

Did you know that traditionally in Japan the samurai were at the top (highest class) with the peasants in the middle and the lowest class were the merchants.
Smart people :)

I am not sure about Japan, however, the merchants still had more money.

Plus the point is that htey start in sweatshops, in our country, then work their way out of it after a decade or two, or some do anyways. However, in their own countries, thanks to the invasion by foreign capital and the drive to modernise, they havnt got any choice. You cant get along if you dont own any land or cant sell your produce.

Originally posted by guthrie
I am not sure about Japan, however, the merchants still had more money.

Plus the point is that htey start in sweatshops, in our country, then work their way out of it after a decade or two, or some do anyways. However, in their own countries, thanks to the invasion by foreign capital and the drive to modernise, they havnt got any choice. You cant get along if you dont own any land or cant sell your produce. And so how did Japan? Singapore? S. Korea? and presently China, get out of it?

And that still doesn't mean that they should up and leave for another country.

Easy, the south east asian tigers swap cheaper labour for raw materials they dont have themselves, and make use of their own natural resources, eg coal. Its a matter of trade. I cant really think of any country that has developed itself to modern stages without any overseas trade, and transfer of information and suchlike. It happens much easier if you keep the capital generated in country though.

Originally posted by guthrie
It happens much easier if you keep the capital generated in country though. I think this may be an important point in helping some of these poorer countries out of the poor conditions they are in.

So the way I see it is like this:
1) Most people have been poor throughout history.
2) A few counties put a successful system in place (gov, econ, etc) to generate wealth.
3) Poor countries like Singapore made it out and became successful.
4) Countries that have been bombed to a crisp (Japan/Korea) made it out
5) Countries that have had their 2000 years of gold stolen (China) are now making it out.
6)These countries make it out because the people pressure the govenrment to change and then work like hell to become prosperous.

It certainly should be possible for any country to do so. But, I don’t like this idea of interfering with other countries policies. Even if I do loath some of their government structures (N. Korea, the Tibetan “Autonomous Region”, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Vietnam comes to mind). And frankly, these people choose there leaders by supporting them. One man does not make a country and revolutions and new governments happen more often than not (The USA happens to have the oldest constitution still in use in the world). So maybe they pick a shitty system and the new system may not work – but like anyone they will just have to learn from their mistakes. The USA didn't make up it's system. They barrowed hugely from the Scottish (a people who knew repression) and English, and Ancient Greek and Roman.

So if people in the West/Far East want to use their tax and/or investments to help, then they can help countries that are poor to generate wealth. But it’s up to them. They chose who gets what moneys and they chose who comes and goes out of their countries. Japan may be strict but I certainly don’t think it’s my place to tell them who they should and should not let into their country. Yes, it’s their providence to have been born there and another’s to have been born in Pakistan - but that’s just life.

To stop sweatshops – “individual consumers” should not buy products from these companies. In a month they'd begin to make huge changes. For example, I don't happen to wear Nike.

Although I can not blame the people for wanting to go to a country with the freedoms that exist in the West - it is up to them to do it for themselves- in their own country. Like our forefathers eventually did, not to give up and move try to sneak into Japan/Australia/ect…

Wouldn't you agree?

right, sounds fine to me.