Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Be good or be gone from open society, there should be no other options for all non-citizens

Be good or be gone from open society, there should be no other options for all non-citizens

The fundamental expectation that we all have of any visitor to our homes is that they be well mannered and respectful of our house rules, and at a national level I reckon its no different so when we have people that we as a community have welcomed and offered our support and succour its entirely reasonable that if  they break our laws and cause grief and suffering to our society that we show them to a seat on the next plane outta here. Frankly we don’t need the sort of bullshit that my fellow Poms have had trying to deport some of the most depraved jihadists and even foreign nationals who are common criminals . All because of England being a signatory to fine sounding international law instruments.  The opposition have been quite vocal of late about a proposed change to our law to quickly deport any non-citizen who commits any offense that may  incur a sentence of a year or more of imprisonment upon conviction.

click for source

click for source

This sounds about right to me and if we have to denounce aspects of the UN charter to expel undesirable scum-bags then so be it but if the “compassionate”  desire of our friends from the left prevents the deportation of criminal immigrants because they fear “persecution” in their home country then indefinite imprisonment seems fair enough to me. I wonder how many of these foreign criminals will lose all of that “fear” once their choice is leave this country  or spend a very long time at Her Majesty’s pleasure?   Most by my reckoning.

The most interesting thing  for me in the Age piece that I cite here is the Poll at the bottom where  roughly two thirds of the respondents agree with the coalition policy. Given the general lean to the left of the Fairfax demographic this is a significant result indeed.

Cheers Comrades.

1310796818

Advertisements

29 Comments

  1. Ray Dixon says:

    I don’t really have a problem with the coalition adopting a hardline on any new arrival who commits a crime but then I read this in the article:

    This follows Bureau of Statistics figures in March that showed asylum seekers living in the community on bridging visas were about 45 times less likely to be charged with a crime than members of the general public.

    Which kind of suggests there isn’t a serious problem with asylum seekers and the law in the first place. It also puts yours and GD’s rhetoric about the value of admitting muslim asylum seekers into perspective, Iain.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    Which kind of suggests there isn’t a serious problem with asylum seekers and the law in the first place. It also puts yours and GD’s rhetoric about the value of admitting muslim asylum seekers into perspective, Iain.

    The point is if you are living in an area that has a problem with immigrant gangs as is the case in some parts of Melbourne it will be comforting to know that miscreants will be promptly thrown out of the country.
    In any event the statistics cited are rather misleading, what would be far more accurate would be to consider the percentage of the people that we have accepted as refugees take up a life of crime. At the very least most of the new arrivals need some serious re-education about our social values and expectations, the way that we respect women even when they are scantily clad, the secular nature of our society and taht they should leave their feuds at their point of entry into this country. Along with a whole host of other things that we take for granted.
    Global experience suggests that those who subscribe to an intolerant totalitarian ideology are ill suited for life in an open and secular democracy and that they tend to agitate for changes to the host society that more suits their own anti-libertarian view point so I ask do we really want to add that sort of mindset to the Aussie mix?

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    I have no problem with deporting any new arrival who commits violent gang attacks, Iain. Although I think you’ll find the max sentence for such crimes is already more than for one year in jail, so the coalition’s proposal to reduce the ‘deport threshold’ to any crime that carries a one year sentence is a bit harsh. Still, I don’t see it causing great problems; I see it as a kneejerk reaction or, more correctly, as designed to appeal to the kneejerkers in society as a ‘get tough’ policy. It’s pretty much a token policy when you look at the low crime rates among visa holders anyway.

    I don’t understand your suggestion that we need to look at “the percentage of the people that we have accepted as refugees (who) take up a life of crime”. I’d suggest it’s probably far lower than in the general public and I don’t think there’s even any anecdotal evidence to suggest it’s a problem.

    As for the rest of your comment concerning mere social issues, well all I can say is it takes all types to make up a society.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    I don’t understand your suggestion that we need to look at “the percentage of the people that we have accepted as refugees (who) take up a life of crime”. I’d suggest it’s probably far lower than in the general public and I don’t think there’s even any anecdotal evidence to suggest it’s a problem.

    Its simple really. If you look at the number of Asylum seeker/ refugee offenders compared to the total number of offenders of any sort the number may well be “45 times” less but that is not a true measure that tells us the true extent of the problem that we are importing here. For that we neat the number of offenders compared to the Asylum seeker/ refugee cohort they come form and I tend to think that it would be higher than the general population.

    As for the rest of your comment concerning mere social issues, well all I can say is it takes all types to make up a society.

    Well I argue that there is NO such thing as a “mere” social issue all must be addressed and most benefit from being addressed well before they become serious problems.

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    If you look at the number of Asylum seeker/ refugee offenders compared to the total number of offenders of any sort the number may well be “45 times” less but that is not a true measure that tells us the true extent of the problem that we are importing here. For that we neat the number of offenders compared to the Asylum seeker/ refugee cohort they come form and I tend to think that it would be higher than the general population.

    Sorry, Iain, that just doesn’t make much sense. The stats mean that (for example) there’s only 1 in every 1000 visa holders charged with a crime compared to 45 in every 1000 among the rest of the population. If you think there’s some other statistic that proves that visa holders are more criminal then …. try Google. Good luck.

    there is NO such thing as a “mere” social issue all must be addressed and most benefit from being addressed well before they become serious problems.

    You can’t order up society the way you would like it to be, Iain. There are potential miscreants, misfits, anti-social types, unwashed and dickhead people in all sectors of our society. There are even Collingwood supporters. They all go to make up the mix and you can’t set norms of behaviour on the pretext that they “might” become a problem in future. What do you suggest – etiquette lessons? Compulsory courses for all immigrants on how to behave and what to think? Mate, at least they don’t get around town dressed in track suits like Aussie bogans do.

  6. Richard Ryan says:

    What are we going to do with all these English, who are in their thousands, who have been here for years, and refuse to become citizens of this country. One old biddy told me she was born British, and will die British. Been diplomatic I told her to go back and die in England.

  7. Richard Ryan says:

    MAYBE deport them!

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Richard I will say this only once, The good lord himself is an Englishman because he, being omnipotent, could choose his nationality and why would he choose to be anything other than English?

    That said I have no problem at all with those Brits who have been resident here prior to the Hawke government who continue to exercise their right to permanently reside here and to fully participate in the political process by having voting rights. Australia is at its cultural core a British colony and without that we would not be the vibrant and successful society that you and I both enjoy.

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    Australia is at its cultural core a British colony and without that we would not be the vibrant and successful society that you and I both enjoy.

    No Iain. To the vast majority of Australians our British origins mean nothing whatsoever. And I don’t think you can reasonably say England contributed much to our vibrancy & success – if anything we’ve succeeded and become a vibrant country only after shaking off the shackles of British rule.

    As for non-citizen English immigrants, I think the coalition’s new deportation policy should also apply to them.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    without the very English template for our social institutions we would simply not be the sort of country we now are. Imagine (shudder :eek:) )that those “cheese eating surrender monkeys” had been the European colonisers instead of Britannia, we would all be speaking Japanese by now because there is no way that they would have stood up to the the Japs during WW2 the way that the British derived Aussies did.

    There have in fact been quite a few Brits who have been been deported after serving their sentences and you will find that I have repeatedly endorsed such things right here in this blog.

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    Well I admit, Iain, that we were better off being settled by the British than either the French or the Dutch, who were both hanging about the area. As for WWII though, where was Britain when Australia was under threat (and attack) from Japan? Nowhere to be seen, in fact they hindered our defence by insisting our troops stay in Africa. It’s a one-way street as far as the UK is concerned.

  12. Tony says:

    The poms were too busy defending themselves against a German Reich, that had reached the channel Ray, and were looking to add the UK as a new state ?

    It simply didn’t have any resources left to help themselves, let alone any of their colonies. If I read the books right, it was us, and the yanks who ended up, hitting the boats and planes, to defend them from being over run ?

  13. Ray Dixon says:

    It’s well documented that Churchill had decided to let Australia fall to the Japs. He wouldn’t release our troops from Africa (where England was hardly under threat) to defend us from invasion and, as a result we had to send a hastily thrown together lot until John Curtin bravely defied the Poms and brought our boys straight from Africa to fight and stave off the Japanese in Papua New Guinea. We were hung out to dry.

  14. Richard Ryan says:

    “People are strange” We have boat people who want to become citizens of this country—–and then we have this other lot, the British, who think they have a God given right not to become Aussie citizens, while they bludge on the goodwill of the Aussie. I say become citizens, or p.u.a.f.o.

  15. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    You really are a committed hater of all things British aren’t you?
    Ray
    I do have a pretty good grasp of WW2 history and I don’t dispute foe a minute that Churchill was far more interested in the defeat of Hitler in Europe than he was on defending Australia from the Japanese however that was not the basis of may point which was to suggest that if we had been under the French then in stead of the “Brisbane line” we would have seen the entire mainland ceded to the invading Japs. They are rightly famous for surrendering to Hitler’s advance with very little meaningful resistance.

  16. GD says:

    To the vast majority of Australians our British origins mean nothing whatsoever

    Do you have a reference for that Ray? Our British origins were obvious to all who took up residence and subsequently citizenship in the 50s and 60s. These are the people you regularly tout as ‘excellent examples of refugees or migrants’.

    They left their European countries, Greece, Italy, etal, to come to this hybrid society based on the British system. It wasn’t because this land was a wide open land waiting to be colonised, it was because Britain had already taken the hard yards and set up a society that promised more than their homelands could deliver.

    Your much touted migrants knew this.

    Today however, memories are short, leftards prefer to rewrite history and pretend it began when the ‘migrants’ or ‘refugees’ arrived here. To a leftard that is when Australia became a nation.

    And now leftards are waiting patiently for Islamists to take their rightful place in our nation’s history.

    To the vast majority of Australians our British origins mean nothing whatsoever

    Do you have a reference for that Ray? Or are you merely dreaming of an Islamic Australian society where indeed our British origins will mean nothing.

  17. Richard Ryan says:

    British origins, mean sweet f. all to me. They don’t exist. Shalom, your truly, Richard Ryan.

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Would that be because you are of Irish extraction Richard?

  19. Richard Ryan says:

    Iain, Irish born. A republican true and true.

  20. Ray Dixon says:

    are you merely dreaming of an Islamic Australian society where indeed our British origins will mean nothing.

    No. Are you nuts? Or were you pissed when you asked that?

  21. GD says:

    No Ray, you can’t get away with a one-liner. Answer the question.

    You stated: “to the vast majority of Australians our British origins mean nothing whatsoever”

    I asked,

    “Do you have a reference for that Ray?”

    Of course you don’t and once again this is another example of your personal opinions, not the opinions of a ‘vast majority’.

    If you want to witness a ‘vast majority’ opinion, tune into any TV station at 6:30pm on Saturday the 14th of September.

    Then you’ll see what the ‘vast majority’ of Australians think about our heritage.

  22. Ray Dixon says:

    this is another example of your personal opinions

    Yes GD, it’s my personal opinion that the vast majority of Australians don’t really care about our British origins as a nation. I never claimed it as a fact so what’s your friggin point? Oh, your point is you think you’ve scored a point? Well you haven’t. Go back to sleep mate.

  23. Tony says:

    Just a few points Ray ?

    * If we didn’t care about our British roots, why then do we ?
    1. Still have the Queen as our head of state, regardless of the rumblings from the wings to change to a republic ?
    2. Why do we still have a British law system, both laws, as well as courts, as well as a Westminster mode of governing ?
    3. Why does the majority of our population go ga-ga every time there is a royal wedding, or new royal bub on the scene ?

    The Australia Act of 1986 pretty much meant our cessassation of any legal obligation to GB, so after that date, we were, at least legally anyway, on our own. Of course our independence was much earlier than that, probably back to 1901 and Federation ?

    Even though you may be partially correct, in your assumption that Australians don’t really care about our British origins as a nation we will still defend that historical link with our lives. Which of course we have done over decades.

    The “extremist” Islamic world, attempting to infiltrate, manipulate, and more over to control this society (which is their ultimate end game), will never succeed due to this loyaly, and steadfast determination to our inherited principles, no matter how many threats, bombings, and other intimidatory tactics they may use here !

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    I very much doubt that the majority of Australians have “British roots”.

  25. Tony says:

    Neither do :

    Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Gambia, Ghana,
    Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New
    Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles,
    Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu,
    Zambia, and so on et al.

    BUT, all have accepted the Queen as their heads of state accordingly, and defend their states as part of that commitment to the Commonwealth ?
    As such, they have all been coloniised by the poms, and again, as such, have ALL accepted English laws, parliaments, and everything else, deeply “ro*ted” in English law, and English history ?

    That “history” for most of these countries (including ours !), has been the case for over three hundred years, and will continue.
    That “history” has been fought over and defended, for the same amount of time, and will continue ?

    Regardless of the influx of immigrants to the contrary, we are still part of the British Empire, our society based on that empire, and will remain so, no matter who, or what, forces attempt to change it !

  26. Ray Dixon says:

    we are still part of the British Empire, our society based on that empire

    No we’re not and no it’s not. Not for a long time.

    Look, this came about when Iain said this earlier in the thread:

    Australia is at its cultural core a British colony and without that we would not be the vibrant and successful society that you and I both enjoy.

    But our “colonial” past is exactly that – it’s past, gone, history and no longer relevant to who we are. We are much more than that … and thank Christ we’ve moved on.

  27. Tony says:

    Sorry to disagree with you Ray.
    If you were correct, we would have a president, as our head of state, not the Queen ? The rest is above.

    I admit, since the Australia Act in 86, we have governed ourselves. Point taken, but everything we are, was based on the English system of nearly everything. That hasn’t changed. All the act above did, as far as I know, was take out the Privy Council from our hierarchy of appeal courts.

    The “British Empire” has wained over the last hundred years, and no longer do we (or any other former colony for that matter), take orders from Westminster any more. As it should be ?

    Even if you are correct, why is the Queens Birthday, the only real national holiday that we all get a day off for ?
    The Brits aren’t the only country, that have come to have emigrated here, but funny that this holiday, is the only international holiday that we celebrate ? Respect for our roots, or perhaps more maybe ?

    I do, however, agree with you, that we have moved far beyond our roots.
    Everything we are is based on the English society, BUT, due to our massive immigration, since Federation, many differing cultures have influenced this society ever since, and will continue to do so ?

  28. Ray Dixon says:

    Sure, we respect our British origins and links – no question about that. My point is that being a part of England is no longer at our cultural core, as Iain suggests it is. We are Australians. We are unique. We are not British, not American and certainly not muslim. We have come of age and our British origins are now irrelevant.

  29. Tony says:

    Can’t argue with any of that ?
    😉

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: