mightychurch.com

BTW I note you have failed to answer my responses completely.
I assume this is due to the fragility of your argument.

This Youtube link has a commentator in the US speaking about Muslims on welfare with high birth numbers, and the problem liberals cause by placing their collective heads in the sand. In other words, Owen, a link you are unlikely to agree with. (I know this guy is a lot to the right, but he makes valid true points)

Muslims and liberals

(Ad Homnem arguments about points I raise are hardly logical discussion. I havnt time to list the many bad social issues that Islam brings to the many countries it has inhabited. But, they seem to bring the same problems wherever they settle. Of course not all Muslims do this, but a great lot of them bring many problems to the land they settle in.)

This Youtube link brings it all home to Australia Muslim lives on the dole in Australia for 19 years whilst plotting Jihad

The beliefs of this man, I have heard repeated to me (without the Jihad motive of course) Listen to what he says about his regard to our laws.

And finally this link Muslim crime statistics

Islam, A Problem In Australia (Islam prohibits integration) - is this what Australia wants from multiculturalism

People coming here are not prepared to change Islamic political views, and are directed to shun Australian ways. Some also see us as an enemy to defeat. In the clips one man says there are two laws - Australian Law, and Islamic law. Which one is more important to most Muslims? They also say they are not interested in our politics. Is this because they think our system will fade away because of an Islamic victory?

Look at this clip, and the other preceding clips, and I ask you “is there a great problem?”

I think there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Muslims, worldwide, present great difficulties to Western democracratic countries, like Australia. I am only seeking change in dealing with this problem. I do not enjoy criticising any culture, unless it is against values I hold dear, and threats to my Christian family.

If people refuse to see that there is a problem, how can a problem be solved?

Let’s seek change, and the first step is to make all people aware of the problem. Seek a solution and solve it. Simple, no?

I’m quite disenchanted with the asylum seeker processing system.
The asylum seekers from the DRC that I posted about have had their application refused, and are now (I think) going into the appeals process.
 
The heresay is, when they filled in the forms, they didn’t check the box pertaining to persecution, because they didn’t properly understand what the word means.
Bearing in mind they fear for their lives if returned, their situation is horrible, and the ‘processing’ system deeply flawed.

Hi all,
Malcolm Fraser had some thought provoking things to say here. He’s having a go at both of today’s parties.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/25/3253374.htm

And Janet Albrechtsen shares this perspective :

Sacred cows get diced by reality

Janet Albrechtsen   From:The Australian   June 29, 2011

MALCOLM Fraser has become the ringmaster of the soft-left agenda in this country. Fraser and friends, some resembling political clowns and others linguistic acrobats, use emotional tricks to claim a monopoly over compassion on their pet issues.

They treat views that diverge from theirs as a sure sign of redneck ignorance, right-wing cruelty and dreadful immorality. Along with gay marriage and climate change, an open border immigration policy is one of those totemic leftist issues where believers brook no disagreement.

At the core of the Left’s case sits an authoritarian contempt for the Australian people and a refusal to acknowledge the reality that supporting strong borders and showing compassion are not mutually exclusive….........

link

I agree with almost everything in the following 3 paragraphs except the conclusion of the last line:

The complex refugee issue deserves more than Twitter platitudes. Start with some hard-headed facts. According to the UN refugee agency Global Trends 2010 report, 43.7 million people were forcibly displaced by conflict by the end of 2010. UNHCR Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees Alexander Aleinikoff says barely one per cent of the world’s refugees (or under 100,000 out of 10 million) are resettled each year. Many wait for years to gain entry to countries such as Australia.

Even the PM acknowledged on Meet The Press on Sunday that there is a “queue” for orderly refugee migration. Every country places a limit on the number of refugees it accepts. Hence, those entering as unauthorised boat arrivals will take the place of others waiting in refugee camps. Policies that encourage this are not compassionate to those waiting in refugee camps. And policies that encourage asylum-seekers to take boats across treacherous seas are not compassionate to them when death is a real threat.

The other realities are also simple enough. Australians will embrace higher levels of immigration if there is an orderly immigration policy. While critics decried John Howard’s immigration policy for lacking compassion, the facts point the other way. Immigration increased every year after 1996, rising from 67,100 in 1997 to more than 142,000 in 2006. Relying on evidence, not emotion, the fair-minded would call this a compassionate outcome.

RUBBISH! Stealing ‘skilled workers’ from India so we can super-propel our economy while robbing them of their doctors and carpenters and plumbers is NOT compassionate, but greedy self-serving immigration policy by population boosters!

The reality is we could triple our *genuine* refugee intake and still halve the thieving we do of developing nation’s skilled workers. And we could keep the population level stable if we increased training at home to solve our own unemployment problems! Doubling or tripling genuine refugee intake while drastically cutting immigration as a whole is the population policy of SPA (Sustainable Population Australia). SPA meet regularly with Federal ministers, and so I’m hoping to see their immigration and population policy adopted ASAP.

As for the boat people? Yes there is a queue, yes they require processing, yes we should be suspicious of people arriving without papers and jumping the queue, but do we really have to send them to Malaysia or Nauru? Why can’t we just process their claims here? What are you frightened of?

Watching Leaky Boat last night returned me to seethe mode as in the 2001 election.
The lies of the politicians and denigrations of boat people were and still remain a disgusting statement about us. Our willingness to deride them for even wanting to come here is appalling.
I was particularly struck by the woman who was a participant in “Go Back to Where You Came From”  who hated boat people before that series now had compassion only for her favourite group of refugees but claimed Afghani refugees weren’t “real”.
Morrison and Ackerman were less than admirable, but then there was nothing admirable about the Howard Govt approach. Mind you there was nothing admirable about the Rudd and then the Gillard Govt. approaches. Rudd made the same stupid kind of claims about Sri Langkan refugees that Hawke did of Cambodians.
The legacy of Hansonism hasn’t left us- IMO she just resurrected a fresher version of the White Australia Policy, and the current anti-multi-culturalism rhetoric is mostly an excuse to claim Muslims are “other” and a threat.
Spewing!

Dave Lankshear said:

As for the boat people? Yes there is a queue, yes they require processing, yes we should be suspicious of people arriving without papers and jumping the queue, but do we really have to send them to Malaysia or Nauru? Why can’t we just process their claims here? What are you frightened of?

I have heard that the people smugglers ask their customers to throw away the papers, and that it is not an idea that asylum seekers come up with.

But I have met many ex-refugees in my travels, and I know that if an ethnic clique sees something working for them, they all copy and follow suite. Lets face it it prolongs the process for them. It is an industry!

I am in favour of Australia taking its quota of refugees, but to allow the people smugglers to get people into the country based on a payment to them, is not fair to the refugees waiting for a legal entry. They are jumping the queue, and I fear that far too many of them are from Islamic countries..

I thought the idea of sending illegal refugees back to say Malaysia had some merit, but apparently Malaysia is cruel to people like this. Malaysia is of course Muslim, and the Muslim way of dealing with people for non-compliance is cruel generally.

The biggest problem with refugees who come here, is the number of them who will never, ever find employment. Either employers don’t want them because they seem unsuitable: or they don’t try too hard to find work, and rely on cash money from other dubious activities along with the dole cheque. I have spoken to Muslim businesses who state categorically that they will not employ Muslims because they are too great a risk.

I dont think many Muslims who come here as refugees are integrating or working in salaried jobs. (I tried to get stats on this from freedom of information Legislation and the department said that they dont keep records based on religion or country of origiin. This is not really freedom of information I think. If a particular problem exists, how can Australia deal with it if it holds its head in the sand.)

Muslims need to understand that “Islam doesnt work”. And try to assimilate with us, and benefit from our great country, instead of living in the past with the ideas of some weird guy’s ideas from medieval times. (“Islam doesnt work” - a good slogan to get the message over)

I guess that is my only fear about accepting some asylum seekers, the fact that they will not try to assimilate or find work in Australia, or to pay us back for accepting them, by joining the society they now live in.

This could be a problem for Julia & co. :

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/unhcr-wont-sign-off-on-people-swap-deal/story-e6freuyi-1226106804844

UNHCR won’t sign off on people swap deal

From:AAP August 02, 2011 3:54PM

THE Federal Opposition says the UN’s refugee agency’s reluctance to endorse an asylum-seeker swap deal with Malaysia has created an ethical dilemma for a trio of Government backbenchers.

Doug Cameron, Melissa Parke and Anna Burke previously have said their support for the deal is conditional on a sign-off by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

“This is character test for those Labor backbenchers,” acting opposition leader Julie Bishop told reporters in Sydney. Opposition Immigration Spokesman Scott Morisson said the backbenchers “were glued to their seats with their lips shut tight,” as the Government pressed ahead with an arrangement that had failed their own test.

Under the plan Australia will send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia in return for 4000 processed refugees. The Government inked the deal last week and talked up the “active role” of the UNHCR in the transfer process.

One cabinet minister, Stephen Conroy, even claimed that Geneva had signed off on the people swap deal. But UNHCR regional head Ric Towle says that is not the case….................

If the UNHCR doesn’t like the deal, that would be a problem for the refugees, I would think.

From my post #8

My idea for this thread is to discuss our Christian responsibilities to be kind to the alien and stranger in our land.  Considering the real ambiguities and complications we have.  I just didn’t want to get mired in the politicisation stuff.

   
I must have been dreamin’.
   
On a more positive note, it appears the refugee family I wrote about have come to know Christ!  Because of the care and witness of the Christians they met, in contrast to their previous Bahai friends.