• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No more immigrants please!

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
This is a myth. I grew up in New Zealand, so I think I know more about it than you. There were no natives in New Zealand before the Maori. There was a separate group who lived in the Chatham Islands called the Moriori. What happened was that two Maori iwi (tribes), riding on European ships, went to the Chatham Islands and did some very bad things, like enslavement and warfare. By the way, the Maori at that time were not one people. Tribal affiliation was more important than the idea of a Maori whole, which probably didn't even exist until invaders came and grouped them all together. So just because some iwi did some bad things doesn't mean you can blame all Maori as you just did.

Thats funny my entire family is from New Zealand and I was born in Gisborne north island.

Sorry to blame all of the maoris for the disappearance of a native population. That wasn't really the point of it, I was just bringing up a popular "myth" which was actually unrelated to this discussion. How the maoris took over New Zealand really isn't important to the immigration issue.

I was suggesting that the use of historical colonialism as an arguement to knock down anti-immigration arguements doesn't always work.

It doesn't matter if you come from England or New Zealand, people have the ability to do bad stuff to each other. The fact that people do bad stuff everywhere doesn't justify conquest and colonialism, by any side.

There is no justification of colonialism. The entire point of bringing up maoris was to provide an example of a nation with no "natives." Bringing up New Zealand is also a great demonstration of how problematic "natives" can be.
 

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
If you're so concerned with having your thread derailed, where were your objections when an Australian white supremacist switched the topic to Aborigines and Maoris of New Zealand? You added to the argument that all the wrongs done to aboriginal peoples are something of the distant past and irrelevant today: "I think it's really pointless giving to much attention to what the white-man did several hundred years ago. The World was a different place then." Seems like you helped derail your own thread!

Haha thats amusing. Calling me a white supremist is actually almost offensive, I expected much more from you to be honest.

Whats with these threads (i've been here a long time) in throwing these words and labels around so loosely? Its as if any time someone brings up anything which criticises even slightly a minority they're a racist white supremist :rolleyes:
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
Haha thats amusing. Calling me a white supremist is actually almost offensive, I expected much more from you to be honest.
While I expect little of you because of your denigration of aboriginal peoples. I would have expected you to express some examples of concern or appreciation for their history, while you make it clear that you see anything bad that whites have done in your land is something long ago committed by the English criminals who landed on your Continent and founded your nation.

Whats with these threads (i've been here a long time) in throwing these words and labels around so loosely? Its as if any time someone brings up anything which criticises even slightly a minority they're a racist white supremist :rolleyes:
I am 3/4ths white, male in my mid-50's, so when I started becoming aware of how this world really works, I also discovered how the fears, animosities and general anxieties of whites are played upon by the business class. So, anyone who presents an argument to me about "reverse discrimination" whether it's based on race or gender, has to clear a few bars to demonstrate that they are not racist or sexist....and buddy, you sure don't clear that bar, based on your rhetoric about Aborigines!

For myself, an example of how white resentment is used by power elites to maintain control was found in the history of the American South after the Civil War. In the South, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and the racism and oppression of blacks by mostly rural, dirt-poor whites made no sense, except that the wealthy southerners realized that they could keep their control of politics and business if they kept poor whites focused on fear of being displaced by blacks and becoming the lowest class. The Ku Klux Klan was not a populist, grassroots uprising of reverse-discrimination as many modern southern racists like David Duke argued. Instead it was a skillfully manipulated movement run by wealthy landowners and business owners, which successfully deflected attention from themselves as the primary cause of poverty and deprivation in the South.
 

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
While I expect little of you because of your denigration of aboriginal peoples. I would have expected you to express some examples of concern or appreciation for their history, while you make it clear that you see anything bad that whites have done in your land is something long ago committed by the English criminals who landed on your Continent and founded your nation.

High and might much? Given your age further down i'd have expected you to be a little more open minded, instead of the painfully typical trend on this forum to react as you did to anything remotely critical of anyone (that isn't white).

The discussion came about because you brought up 1777. Thats over 200 years ago. My arguement (which is clearly racist and apparently i'm a white supremist) is that there must be a point at which history has no bearing on the future. Of course this is not always true but for the purposes of this discussion I believe it is. You've then proceeded to throw around insults instead of having any form of discussion.

Why do you think 1777 has any bearing on anti-immigration policy?

I am 3/4ths white, male in my mid-50's, so when I started becoming aware of how this world really works, I also discovered how the fears, animosities and general anxieties of whites are played upon by the business class. So, anyone who presents an argument to me about "reverse discrimination" whether it's based on race or gender, has to clear a few bars to demonstrate that they are not racist or sexist....and buddy, you sure don't clear that bar, based on your rhetoric about Aborigines!

To be honest it really doesn't matter what you think. One thing you would do well to learn here is to attack the opinion and not the person. You can play the wisdom card all you want, but my aboriginal rhetoric still does not fit the definition of racism no matter how far you stretch it.

For myself, an example of how white resentment is used by power elites to maintain control was found in the history of the American South after the Civil War. In the South, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and the racism and oppression of blacks by mostly rural, dirt-poor whites made no sense, except that the wealthy southerners realized that they could keep their control of politics and business if they kept poor whites focused on fear of being displaced by blacks and becoming the lowest class. The Ku Klux Klan was not a populist, grassroots uprising of reverse-discrimination as many modern southern racists like David Duke argued. Instead it was a skillfully manipulated movement run by wealthy landowners and business owners, which successfully deflected attention from themselves as the primary cause of poverty and deprivation in the South.

My example is the wide gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Australians. The government throws money at them in the form of adequate housing and health care benefits. They have specialist university programmes and positions. Any job application (especially in rural mining) has a diversity policy where aboriginal (and Torres Straight Islanders which are another group) are given preference as part of a diversity policy. Yet still there is so much animosity towards the government from this group and the gap appears to be widening. Perhaps you and your infinite wisdom have a solution for this as well?
 
Last edited:

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
Sometimes, when you're searching for enemies, you have to pick up a mirror and take a good look in it!
Are you saying one of them is behind me now?! *spins around* I can't see em, sneaky rats.

Now back to them immigrant types ^_-

For Australia, the illegal immigrant problem is perhaps more marked due to the relatively high costs of security given our landmass and the expansive oceanographic region needing to be secured; that combined with a small population to cover that cost as well as any expenses incurred in order to support illegal immigrants and to a lesser extent, to that proportion of legal immigrants who apply primarily for the purposes of welfare for themselves or their families. That said, I support legal immigration, particular of skilled workers in areas where we do not have enough qualified or experienced individuals and particularly of people who are without dependants (I am not in favour of bringing them all over simply because they managed to have one family member legally migrate).
 
Last edited:

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
now here's a question for all those seemingly in support of very liberal immigration policies:

Why should Australia grant long-term visas or residency to uneducated masses from nearby 3rd World nations?

How will it benefit Australia?

What have these outposts of mankind ever done for Australia?
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
High and might much? Given your age further down i'd have expected you to be a little more open minded, instead of the painfully typical trend on this forum to react as you did to anything remotely critical of anyone (that isn't white).
Which minority group controls the levers of power in this world? And that's why when you attack the rights and human dignity of minorities that have suffered oppression, you have to demonstrate that you are aware of the historic imbalances that have created many of systemic examples of despair that can't be solved by dropping a few dollars or tossing in a few do-gooders to tell them how they should fix their problems, before you go on the attack and ask what's wrong with them.

The discussion came about because you brought up 1777. Thats over 200 years ago. My arguement (which is clearly racist and apparently i'm a white supremist) is that there must be a point at which history has no bearing on the future.
And what if it isn't....which it is not, because there are no magic demarcations between events. Once you create an imbalance, it's very hard to change afterwards. I could cite the example of Ireland -- where English meddling tried to erase the adherence to the Catholic Church through penalties and disincentives for Catholics, and bonuses and land grants for those who converted to Protestantism....and if you weren't aware, the lingering effects of the Protestant Ascendancy are still in Ireland today.

To be honest it really doesn't matter what you think. One thing you would do well to learn here is to attack the opinion and not the person. You can play the wisdom card all you want, but my aboriginal rhetoric still does not fit the definition of racism no matter how far you stretch it.
It is the equivalent of Ron Paul hiding behind the libertarian dogma of "State's Rights" to explain his opposition to Federal enforcement of the Civil Rights Act and recognition of MLK and Rosa Parks memorials. George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and Lester Maddox played the same State's Rights card back in the 60's to excuse their support for anti-miscegenation and Jim Crow laws also.

My example is the wide gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Australians. The government throws money at them in the form of adequate housing and health care benefits. They have specialist university programmes and positions. Any job application (especially in rural mining) has a diversity policy where aboriginal (and Torres Straight Islanders which are another group) are given preference as part of a diversity policy. Yet still there is so much animosity towards the government from this group and the gap appears to be widening. Perhaps you and your infinite wisdom have a solution for this as well?
Don't know, but like they say: "as you sow, so shall you reap." If Australia is reaping the whirlwind now and not having an easy time dealing with the problem, that can't all be blamed on the people who are oppressed and had their culture and way of life stripped from them.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
Are you saying one of them is behind me now?! *spins around* I can't see em, sneaky rats.

Now back to them immigrant types ^_-

For Australia, the illegal immigrant problem is perhaps more marked due to the relatively high costs of security given our landmass and the expansive oceanographic region needing to be secured; that combined with a small population to cover that cost as well as any expenses incurred in order to support illegal immigrants and to a lesser extent, to that proportion of legal immigrants who apply primarily for the purposes of welfare for themselves or their families. That said, I support legal immigration, particular of skilled workers in areas where we do not have enough qualified or experienced individuals and particularly of people who are without dependants (I am not in favour of bringing them all over simply because they managed to have one family member legally migrate).
I have no doubt that immigration is going to become an even bigger crisis in every Western and wealthier nation, as climate change and the failure of Green Revolution agriculture takes a greater and greater toll. I would have discussed this with the other poster previously, but we never got to it, because of his insistence on focusing his attacks on the original inhabitants of the land.

Australians, like Canadians, Americans, and Spanish, Portuguese and other White European descendents in Latin America, have to acknowledge first that they began as immigrants who overran the lands they conquered and displaced and often obliterated the original inhabitants, before they get up on the soapbox about illegal immigration.

Up till the present, Canada has evaded most of the problems of illegal immigration by maintaining a robust guest-worker program in agriculture. I have never been able to figure out why the Americans abolished their guest worker program decades ago, because most Mexican and West Indies migrant workers who work on the vineyards and fruit farms in Southern Ontario, where I live, have no interest or intentions to stay in Canada over the winter. They stay and work here for up to six months per year and go back home to relax and enjoy a relatively prosperous life back home. The American experience betrays sinister motives of the business class that maintaining a system where illegal workers could stay in the U.S. would drive down average wages in agriculture, and then in construction and every other class including retail. When a scandal erupted regarding the large number of illegal workers working for the giant retail operation - Walmart, questions started to be asked about how such a huge, sophisticated operation, that tracks every aspect of product and sales from their stores was unaware that they had hundreds or thousands of illegal workers working for them!

And, like I said previously, the growing problem now is that American and other multinational interference in local agriculture, is forcing millions of migrant and itinerant farmers off their land in Latin America and Africa, as the land is taken to grow cash crops for export. And, it needs to be added, that modern industrial agriculture and factory farming of meat and dairy production is generating an ecological and climate disaster, that is using up fresh water and destroying topsoil all around the world. Agricultural yields are trending lower, while at the same time the global population is still increasing. The resulting wars, failed states, and civil wars are a byproduct that is forcing migrations that will end up on our shores and affect us directly. The best way to deal with the problem would be to attack the destructive economic system that is creating the mess, but so many complacent, comfortable Westerners aren't yet willing to do something that might require some sacrifice of luxury on their part.
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
Don't know, but like they say: "as you sow, so shall you reap." If Australia is reaping the whirlwind now and not having an easy time dealing with the problem, that can't all be blamed on the people who are oppressed and had their culture and way of life stripped from them.

Hey, I thought it was the Brits who were to blame here though?

They caused the problems then left it to the Ozzies to sort out
 
Last edited:

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
The American experience betrays sinister motives of the business class that maintaining a system where illegal workers could stay in the U.S. would drive down average wages in agriculture, and then in construction and every other class including retail.

We are in agreement here.:)

This is one of the main issues with immigration, as intended by the OP.

Most of it is about keeping the wages low so that the already rich can enjoy their decadent lifestyles earnt off the sweat of the common man.
 

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
Which minority group controls the levers of power in this world? And that's why when you attack the rights and human dignity of minorities that have suffered oppression, you have to demonstrate that you are aware of the historic imbalances that have created many of systemic examples of despair that can't be solved by dropping a few dollars or tossing in a few do-gooders to tell them how they should fix their problems, before you go on the attack and ask what's wrong with them.

To an extent I agree. In saying that though, a general concern I have about these sorts of views is that with so many people of this opinion, a trend is that minorities (especially those with a horrible past) can sometimes use it to deflect any form of criticism even when warranted.

Something i've noticed on this forum (wait till something happens between Israel and Palestine and you'll see what I mean) is how readily western values are berated without provocation. However, turn the shoe and attack the opposition for their part and you will see that there is a glaring double standard. It is something that concerns me. I for one have been called all sorts of things (on this forum) for being proud of western liberty and the country I live in.

And what if it isn't....which it is not, because there are no magic demarcations between events. Once you create an imbalance, it's very hard to change afterwards. I could cite the example of Ireland -- where English meddling tried to erase the adherence to the Catholic Church through penalties and disincentives for Catholics, and bonuses and land grants for those who converted to Protestantism....and if you weren't aware, the lingering effects of the Protestant Ascendancy are still in Ireland today.

The imbalances are always hard to change. In saying that, I strongly disagree that generations who were not in a position to alter the events should be continually dragged over hot coals because of past mistakes.

For example, should German teenagers these days be made to feel ashamed about the holocaust? I say no. They should be aware of what happened but taking responsibility for something they couldn't possibly change makes no sense.

It is the equivalent of Ron Paul hiding behind the libertarian dogma of "State's Rights" to explain his opposition to Federal enforcement of the Civil Rights Act and recognition of MLK and Rosa Parks memorials. George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and Lester Maddox played the same State's Rights card back in the 60's to excuse their support for anti-miscegenation and Jim Crow laws also.

I'm sorry I do not know what is meant by this.

Don't know, but like they say: "as you sow, so shall you reap." If Australia is reaping the whirlwind now and not having an easy time dealing with the problem, that can't all be blamed on the people who are oppressed and had their culture and way of life stripped from them.

Of course not. However, something has to be changed. Trying to close the gap is an endless black hole for policies and tax $ that could be better spent improving the nations public transport infrastructure should we not have the problem. Reconciliation IS a 2 way street though.
 

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
Australians, like Canadians, Americans, and Spanish, Portuguese and other White European descendents in Latin America, have to acknowledge first that they began as immigrants who overran the lands they conquered and displaced and often obliterated the original inhabitants, before they get up on the soapbox about illegal immigration.

So because our forefathers conquered the land we live in, we can't complain about illegal immigration? Seriously?
 

nnmartin

Well-Known Member
Agreed - and what about the British?

They are now having hosts of immigrants pouring in but the UK isn't actually a nation created by immigration.

One must also remember that many colonised countries actually benefited from imperialism - not very PC to say that these days but it is true.
 

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
Agreed - and what about the British?

They are now having hosts of immigrants pouring in but the UK isn't actually a nation created by immigration.

One must also remember that many colonised countries actually benefited from imperialism - not very PC to say that these days but it is true.

Who cares about being PC :p

And we may not have been colonised but we've been invaded more than enough times
 

not nom

Well-Known Member
So because our forefathers conquered the land we live in, we can't complain about illegal immigration? Seriously?

why not?

but you're right, complain about illegal immigration in small trickles... just not about invasion and annihiliation :p
 

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
So because our forefathers conquered the land we live in, we can't complain about illegal immigration? Seriously?

This has been my arguement for about 4 pages now. Thankfully someone else agrees.

As someone from Reading (your football teams goalkeeper is Australian:D) i'm pretty sure you have to find a descendent of someone who was involved in the 11th century takeover and consult them before you make any decisions regarding immigration you land stealing monster ;)
 

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
This has been my arguement for about 4 pages now. Thankfully someone else agrees.

As someone from Reading (your football teams goalkeeper is Australian:D) i'm pretty sure you have to find a descendent of someone who was involved in the 11th century takeover and consult them before you make any decisions regarding immigration you land stealing monster ;)

Wouldn't want to be hypocritical :p. Also I originate from bristol, so not a fan of Reading fc :sorry1:
 
Top