 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^ Interesting & challenging M.
What is our current approach?
What is our current approach to?
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | Morrigu wrote: | | ^ then they should go back - win win! |
Indeed, all of us who are Australian citizens are given an extraordinary privilege in being permitted to share in the wealth and opportunity (financial and political) derived from two centuries of broadly competent government and the work of past generations.
If new and recent arrivals cannot grasp that they owe some gratitude and service to the country as a result, then perhaps it is time for citizenship of refugees and immigrants, and their children, to be probationary for a period, and subject to revocation in the event of conviction of a serious felony. That way we could accommodate more of those who deserve and value the privilege.
If this seems harsh, then it is only because the comfortable classes have been conditioned to snigger at an ethic of responsibility which most ordinary people (many of them less rich and less educated) consider self-evident. People commit acts, for good or ill ; and we owe them the dignity of considering them moral agents who can act wilfully and accept well-advertised just consequences. They are not wards of a state which should assume responsibility (ie be blamed) for their misdeeds.
Only when we rediscover that basic ethic, might we recover some of the kindness, safety, social cohesion, quiet patriotism, tolerance and civility (not to mention public financial responsibility) that we have lost. |
Good lord! Just when I was hoping for a bit of compassion and common sense in this thread...
The children of immigrants do not owe this country a debt any more than any other Australian does which is to say, we are all expected to adhere to the basic social contract of following the law of the land. If we break that contract, we are not, mercifully, shipped off to some prison-island 18th century style; rather, we are given the appropriate fine or jail term and then released back into society, all the while retaining our citizenship and our place in the country in which we were raised. Is this not sufficient? If not, why?
It is bad enough, in my view, that we already treat immigrants as second-class citizens and hold them to a higher degree of accountability. Those of us whose families have lived in the country for generations are no more inherently deserving of the privileges of living here than they are; surely any decent person understands this. But to extend such a paradigm to immigrants' children is far worse still, and is totally contrary to the principle of integration that immigration is built upon.
Your proposal would be an institutionalised "we grew here, you flew here" slogan, with all the hostility that entails. And for what?
Is second-generation immigrant crime a unique phenomenon that our justice system isn't cut out for? Are crime rates among immigrant groups so high that we need a similarly disproportionate response? Or are fantasies of deporting kids who have no other country to call home just a way of keeping us safer from the nasty foreigners?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Or are fantasies of deporting kids who have no other country to call home just a way of keeping us safer from the nasty foreigners? |
Of course it is nothing of the kind - your rejoinder is the usual reflexive cry of racism which has been used to smear and silence contrary argument for too long. Fortunately the public are beginning to see it for what it is - an attempt to avoid engaging with arguments in favour of pursed-lip sanctimony, often from the people who have created the conditions which led to the levels of gang violence which are growing so strongly. There is no racism in accepting people willingly into your community wherever they come from and whatever their race, as long as they do not commit acts of violence against the community.
Clearly we cannot deport people with no home to go back to, so the capacity to do so would need to be a condition of citizenship being offered. The point is the very basic, common-sensible one that no one has a right to be welcomed into someone else's home and then to trash the furniture and assassinate members of the host family. Does a single generation somehow make that ok ? I don't really think so, especially as it is the second generation which seems evidentially responsible for much of the problem.
As for compassion, it's the usual compassion for the wilful perpetrator and not the innocent victim. In a contest over who is more compassionate, I don't think that seems like much of an entry.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | ^ so Mug my words were not in fact my words but those of colleagues who are African refugees themselves.
I recently gave a lecture on clinically significant red cell antibodies and the difficulties in providing compatible blood with the diverse ethnic populations espicially when the majority of our current donor population are Caucasian.
This is very problematic given the propensity for the population that most frequently carry antibodies ( Africans) against common antigens of our donors for breeding and PPH is not uncommon complication.
At the end of the lecture we were discussing how to engage and encourage ethnic minorities to donate ( the prevalence of TTIs such as HIV present a significant problem) - the conversation became interesting to say the least!!
One attendee said " they are too lazy to do so and have forgotten that the community is important "
Two or maybe three were outraged and attacked his opinion with some vigour!
Hmmm - the initial response was from a Sudanese refuge and the outrage from white folk.
The conversation continued and broadened itself to the greater issues and the violent offences committed by African youth.
TBH it got a little embarrassing - I've been to Africa a few times now but an expert that does not make me - in the end he and 3 other Africans of colour said and I quote " there needs to be work and purpose - at home we would have tasks - no-one gives us money for not working - we collected water, we collected firewood - we got nothing without our work to get it"
We are not doing them or ourselves any favours with our current approach IMHO |
Indeed, Morrigu, and this is the point. There are many fine people from that part of the world, with a great work ethic and sense of community. Those people we should cherish. The bat-wielders who whine about racism when arrested make a different choice. We would do well to make that choice seem more consequential.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The fairly obvious point here is that nobody 'invited' an Australian-born child of Sudanese origin any more than anybody invited you or me. This is their home. This is their family. Why are you even making a distinction between them and us to begin with?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | The fairly obvious point here is that nobody 'invited' an Australian-born child of Sudanese origin any more than anybody invited you or me. This is their home. This is their family. Why are you even making a distinction between them and us to begin with? |
Was writing in 5 minute break at work, so I am probably being a little sharper in my judgements than is my wont ; but there seems to be a problem with the second generation who commit acts of violence and terrorism in disproportionate numbers (qv the London bombers and instances of Islamic fundamentalism generally). There are no doubt many reasons why this happens, ranging from parental disorientation in cultural adjustment, to the fact that adolescents are easily confused by identity politics and reach for gang membership or religious extremism as a result.
In politics, it is always good to step outside the boundaries of received wisdom. How many young boys of Sudanese extraction would not enter a life of gangland crime and wasted life chances if they knew that there were severe sanctions for doing so, and that these sanctions were connected to the fact that they and their family live in a country where there is abundant opportunity for hard work, rather than a country where (within living memory) violence and poverty - gang-values - are endemic ?
How many bystander and gang-member lives would be saved by such a policy, how many lives left unscarred by life-changing violent crime ? Of course I do not know if it would work - but the knee-jerk judgements of "compassionate" bien-pensant liberalism seem to me highly suspect in their capacity to deliver a non-violent, harmonious society which maximises real human welfare. The only thing which seems certain about this kind of "liberalism" is that dissent from it is apt to bring down hysterical, conformist moral condemnation.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Different demographics have their challenges, no doubt, and there does seem to be an issue with second-generation immigrants and gang activity (though I'm not sure that second-generation immigrants are necessarily overrepresented in overall crime statistics; I'd have to see some data on that).
Let's say, however, for argument's sake, that it is an overall high-risk demographic. If so, it would be one of many; others include young Indigenous men, white Australians from areas with entrenched poverty and people addicted to certain illegal drugs and alcohol. In order to reduce overall crime and social dysfunction, do we need to be coming up with targeted punishments for each of these groups, or stripping them of certain fundamental rights so as to keep them on a shorter leash? Or is a better approach to recognise the underlying factors behind these forms of dysfunction and work to address them through social policy?
I'm not sure what you've found in my posts to suggest that I'm taking a 'hysterical' or 'conformist' approach to this. I haven't called you or your posts 'racist' (whether they are xenophobic is for readers to decide). I am genuinely appalled by your proposal, but that is because it is founded upon the premise that immigrants and their Australian-born children are unwanted, barely-tolerated house guests as opposed to full members of society. It's precisely the sort of thing that might be (and likely has been, at some point) dreamed up by the BNP or Front National.
That, lest I be accused of ad hominem argument, does not make it fundamentally wrong. But we know what primarily motivates such proposals when they emerge from such political groups, and it isn't crime reduction; it's an overall hostility towards immigration and distrust of foreigners. Frankly, I can see no other reason to entertain ideas about deporting people who were born here. Our systems and institutions are strong enough to deal with crime, whether it be committed by a white Australian from Frankston or an Australian-born teenager of Sudanese origin. The idea that we need a deportation option for the latter category, either for deterrence's sake or so as to improve the overall character of the nation, strikes me as, at best, an admission of weakness; that our institutions are fragile and liable to be shattered by the first sign of graffiti on an underpass. It's a plea to keep the barbarians beyond the gates.
We have a choice here, and it's an important one: do we continue to embrace the immigration project and work to productively remedy specific problems as they arise? Or do we return to the fearful days of yesteryear in which foreigners were treated as inherently dangerous, and litter our borders and our institutions with "you are not welcome" signs? I am quite sure that your proposal would lead us further down the latter path.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Our systems and institutions are strong enough to deal with crime, whether it be committed by a white Australian from Frankston or an Australian-born teenager of Sudanese origin. The idea that we need a deportation option for the latter category, either for deterrence's sake or so as to improve the overall character of the nation, strikes me as, at best, an admission of weakness; that our institutions are fragile and liable to be shattered by the first sign of graffiti on an underpass. It's a plea to keep the barbarians beyond the gates. |
| Quote: | " A prominent South Sudanese-born lawyer has called for the deportation of members of his community who cant adjust to life in Australia.
Deng Adut is a former child-soldier who's emerged as an advocate for Australia's community of refugees from South Sudan.
Mr Adut says many of the young men involved in the violence in Melbourne would be suffering from trauma caused by decades of brutal war in Sudan.
He says they deserve help, but if they can't behave then they might be better back where they came from"
" While Deng Adut is a passionate advocate for his community, he's also tough when it comes to those South Sudanese men people who continue to misbehave.
He bluntly explains that many of them would be better off if the Australian government sent them back to South Sudan.
They're just too traumatised to adjust, and somehow the best way to help them is actually to consider deporting most of these kids, that are there to cause problems for themselves, their parents and the community at large, and wider Australian community.
Because everyone wants to be in peace. Everyone wants to - no-one wants to be assaulted, no one wants to be in trouble. Everyone want to go home when they come from work, go home and sleep - not being assaulted. People work seven days a week and you know that" |
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4424547.htm
| Quote: | " DESPERATE refugee parents are banishing their children to Africa to get the youngsters away from Melbournes teen crime scourge.
Police say parents are regularly sending young troublemakers back to their homelands, including South Sudan, Sudan and Somalia, to break the cycle of criminality.
One Melbourne mum, Zaynab* who the Herald Sun has agreed not to identify to protect her child says she felt she had to send her troubled 15-year-old son to Africa.
Zaynab, who escaped the war-torn region to give her family a better life, even wants authorities to consider a three strikes and youre out policy for problem youths.
Desperate mum Zaynab said: We need to work with the government to tell young people if they do something wrong for first time, second time, third time, (we will) deport them to their country.
Some of the families are understood to feel they cant properly discipline their children amid fears child protection officers will take the youngsters away. |
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/refugee-parents-send-children-away-from-melbournes-teen-crime-scourge/news-story/386297b5095448917593737c8b4f8836
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Chekmate Morrigu. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, because "some African guy agrees with me" = game over? Sorry, I don't do identity politics it's the strength of the argument that matters, not who's making it.
I actually kind of like the proposal in the first part of the second article the idea of travel and cultural submersion as a sort of boarding school for troubled teenagers, from which they can return when the time is right. I trust though that everyone understands the difference between that and deporting people who were born here. Furthermore, while it might help certain individuals who actually have an extended family and community to go back to, it doesn't solve the problem of how to better integrate people here.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
luvdids 
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Location: work
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Yeah, because "some African guy agrees with me" = game over? Sorry, I don't do identity politics it's the strength of the argument that matters, not who's making it.
I actually kind of like the proposal in the first part of the second article the idea of travel and cultural submersion as a sort of boarding school for troubled teenagers, from which they can return when the time is right. I trust though that everyone understands the difference between that and deporting people who were born here. Furthermore, while it might help certain individuals who actually have an extended family and community to go back to, it doesn't solve the problem of how to better integrate people here. |
I really had no interest in getting involved in this but your quote David - because "some African guy agrees with me" - made me.
A prominent south Sudanese born lawyer, and a mother, seem to be a bit more than 'some African guy'.
The lawyer himself said "They're just too traumatised to adjust, and somehow the best way to help them is actually to consider deporting most of these kids". But you seem to know better. |
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Let's face it some cultures are jut more prone to resorting to violence if challenged by society or authority.
If it isn't Sudanese, it's Lebanese or another.
Given the country of there origin it's hardly surprising.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| luvdids wrote: | | David wrote: | Yeah, because "some African guy agrees with me" = game over? Sorry, I don't do identity politics it's the strength of the argument that matters, not who's making it.
I actually kind of like the proposal in the first part of the second article the idea of travel and cultural submersion as a sort of boarding school for troubled teenagers, from which they can return when the time is right. I trust though that everyone understands the difference between that and deporting people who were born here. Furthermore, while it might help certain individuals who actually have an extended family and community to go back to, it doesn't solve the problem of how to better integrate people here. |
I really had no interest in getting involved in this but your quote David - because "some African guy agrees with me" - made me.
A prominent south Sudanese born lawyer, and a mother, seem to be a bit more than 'some African guy'.
The lawyer himself said "They're just too traumatised to adjust, and somehow the best way to help them is actually to consider deporting most of these kids". But you seem to know better. |
Ok, perhaps that was a bit too dismissive. But it remains just one opinion among many. I doubt there is universal or necessarily even majority support in the East African community for mandatory deportation; and the point remains that, whatever the prevailing sentiment, children born here without dual citizenships cannot be legally deported.
So, without some sort of agreement with (say) the Sudanese government for an immediate citizenship swap something that I've never heard of and imagine most countries would look dimly upon, given that they'd be requested to import another country's criminals we'd be rendering people stateless. Even our government hasn't quite plumbed those depths yet, but perhaps it's just a matter of time.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Yeah, because "some African guy agrees with me" = game over? Sorry, I don't do identity politics it's the strength of the argument that matters, not who's making it. |
Of for goodness sake you sound like a petulant child!
Of course it matters who is making the argument - it took us years of abject policy failure to actually engage with Aboriginal people and talk to them to see what THEIR experiences were, what were the issues in THEIR community and what THEY thought would be effective in THEIR communities.
Adut is not some " African guy" - he has lived experience, has educated himself and now works tirelessly to help members of HIS community. If we want real solutions to the problem then such community members must have a voice. I appreciate it is difficult as you can't scream racist or xenophobic at him.
I have a lot of contact with members of the African community and it is extremely common for them to express similar ideas as those in the articles I quoted - that it MAY be appropriate and the best course of action in SOME circumstances to deport and they have a far better understanding of their communities than you or I or anyone else espousing theories from afar.
Personally I place more weight on the thoughts, opinions and suggested strategies and actions of the community members, the mothers and the Aduts than " some white guy" 
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Of course he sounds like a petulant child, that's what happens when someone has strong beliefs on a topic and those beliefs are challenged. First reaction is, your comment does not match, therefore it must be wrong, so find a way to dismiss it.
David's hot buttons stick out like tattoos on his cheeks and you just punched one. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Last edited by stui magpie on Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
