Asylum Seekers claim to have been beaten by Navy - what do you think?

[muzza01]

Pfft, self appointed.
1770 or 35,0000 or 70,0000 if your born here your just as aussie (sadly just not equal) as the next bloke, and the sooner people realize and accept it the better we'll all be.

 I agree for the most part. To be Australian means that you are patriotic, follow its history, accept its ways and love your country. It also means, stop putting your hand out, get off your arse, get a job and contribute something positive to this country.
Sadly, some people continue to milk the welfare system generation after generation. They have never worked and don't have any intention of ever working. To me, that is unAustralian. You don't have to be born here to be an Aussie.

[cm4x4nut]

This thread is still open and for the most part the discussions are healthy and respectful. I say for the most part because some are starting to forget again to keep personal attacks out of it.

I am happy to report that a topic that we thought was going to be closed so quickly has actually stayed open. This proves that the maturity of the discussion is still strong.

I also want to see this kept open, but you need to play by the rules on these topics that can so quickly go off line.

[dazzler]

Sorry Dazzler, but what a load of crap.
You know quite well that this is a totally different situation. I don't hear any foul cries against the Aboriginal people for wiping out the Papuan's who were here before them. Every country has been invaded, war style at some point in time.
I was born here, making me indigenous to this land and I have just as much right to the land as anybody else. Not to take anything away from the terrible atrocities that happened to Aboriginal's in the past, but don't go telling people they were the original illegal immigrants because most of our forefathers were dragged here in chains as convicts and had to fight to survive.

Your off my point.  I was suggesting it was hypocritical to call people illegal when we are all here illegally anyway - other than those who can trace their ancestry, or bloodline, back to 1770.  I too have indigenous in my past from New Norfolk though it is so diluted, and I have no connection with their customs, that I dont identify as one.

Can you put a link to the Aboriginals killing Papuans?   The Australian Aboriginals are the oldest living culture on earth and pre date Papuans.  They may have displaced Mungo who are dated to 25000 yrs ago and are a different species but I am unaware of any other Papuan culture.  Could be wrong of course and seeing as you identify as aboriginal I would expect you would know.  Where was the Papuan Culture based in Australia and where did these battles take place?.

Your not confusing Papuan with Torres Islanders are you?

From a legal point Mabo established that aboriginal people had possession of the land prior to 1770.  Terra Nullius was thrown out.  Therefore, any person here from that point on, without being invited, has come here as a trespasser.

And here is the thing.  Forgetting the aboriginal part of yours, and my, heritage why did our ancestors come here?  Mine came as where they were living was awful and some to get rich.  No different probably to todays immigrants.

Would love the Papuan v Aboriginal link - that would be quite interesting - you learn something everyday!      

[Bird]

I was suggesting it was hypocritical to call people illegal when we are all here illegally anyway

Under that theory every single living person on the face of the earth is here illegally, cause nobody has a copy of the original ownership papers for the planet from 40,000,000,000,000 years ago - but then again we all stem from that single being. So nobody anywhere is illegal.

And if we were all illegally here against the Australian laws, we would be in Shit, but we aren't, so Fail.

[dazzler]

Under that theory every single living person on the face of the earth is here illegally, cause nobody has a copy of the original ownership papers for the planet from 40,000,000,000,000 years ago - but then again we all stem from that single being. So nobody anywhere is illegal.

And if we were all illegally here against the Australian laws, we would be in ****, but we aren't, so Fail.

No not fail.

Historians believe the evidence shows that the Australian Aboriginals were the first people to have ownership of Australia.  The only other people may have been Mungo however there is no evidence they were anything but nomadic.

Mabo tied the AA to Australia and this was based on the fact that they had marked out land and identified boundaries.  So they was first.  They owned it.  Your other examples may be valid but not on this one.

Not Fail.  Pass.   

[dazzler]

From Gene Wilder;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHqL7dNujNc
	Small | Large

[bobnrob]

Some reading for you Dazzler, but there are also other's who refute Norman Tindale and Joseph Birdsell's studies.
The 'debate' continues, but one thing's for sure...MABO should never have happened unless/until Tindale and Birdsell's finding were proven to be completely wrong!

[grafy82]

Your off my point.  I was suggesting it was hypocritical to call people illegal when we are all here illegally anyway - other than those who can trace their ancestry, or bloodline, back to 1770.  I too have indigenous in my past from New Norfolk though it is so diluted, and I have no connection with their customs, that I dont identify as one.

Can you put a link to the Aboriginals killing Papuans?   The Australian Aboriginals are the oldest living culture on earth and pre date Papuans.  They may have displaced Mungo who are dated to 25000 yrs ago and are a different species but I am unaware of any other Papuan culture.  Could be wrong of course and seeing as you identify as aboriginal I would expect you would know.  Where was the Papuan Culture based in Australia and where did these battles take place?.

Your not confusing Papuan with Torres Islanders are you?

From a legal point Mabo established that aboriginal people had possession of the land prior to 1770.  Terra Nullius was thrown out.  Therefore, any person here from that point on, without being invited, has come here as a trespasser.

And here is the thing.  Forgetting the aboriginal part of yours, and my, heritage why did our ancestors come here?  Mine came as where they were living was awful and some to get rich.  No different probably to todays immigrants.

Would love the Papuan v Aboriginal link - that would be quite interesting - you learn something everyday!      

Dazzler, you missed my point too mate. I never intended to insult or belittle aboriginal people, as your condescending willy wonka YouTube clip portrays. And as for the links you ask for as evidence,  you're a big boy, I'm sure you can use google (I've actually read books on the matter, not the net) and just because you've never heard of something (yes, even with your infinite wisdom) doesn't mean it didn't happen. What I'm saying is that all countries have been invaded at some time in history and all we achieve by continually pushing the "we were here first " agenda is to drive a greater racial wedge between us all. It was a long time ago, and not perpetrated by any of us and I think most of Australia feels sorry for what happened in the past and are ready  to move forward together. Our ancestors were not illegals in the context of how they came and settled here. As for me and many others, I only have to trace my bloodline back to the day I  was very luckily born here in my Australia

[Bird]

Dazzler, you missed my point too mate. I never intended to insult or belittle aboriginal people, as your condescending willy wonka YouTube clip portrays. And as for the links you ask for as evidence,  you're a big boy, I'm sure you can use google (I've actually read books on the matter, not the net) and just because you've never heard of something (yes, even with your infinite wisdom) doesn't mean it didn't happen. What I'm saying is that all countries have been invaded at some time in history and all we achieve by continually pushing the "we were here first " agenda is to drive a greater racial wedge between us all. It was a long time ago, and not perpetrated by any of us

We have a winner.

[krisandkev]

I know we are getting off topic, but after reading the above posts I just realised one important point.  At the time that the English took over this country was that illegal back then? If it was not then why do people call it an invasion?  If it was illegal then why do we have to apologise and not the current English government? Maybe they should be held financially responsible. I don’t wish to spark another debate, just interesting to know.     Kevin

[dazzler]

Finally I meet my match.  Or at least my ability to have any sort of dialogue that makes sense.

Lost - Here is ownership - Rejection of terra nullius: The decision recognised that the indigenous population had a pre-existing system of law, which, along with all rights subsisting thereunder, would remain in force under the new sovereign except where specifically modified or extinguished by legislative or executive action. The Court purported to achieve all this without altering the traditional assumption that the Australian land mass was "settled". Instead, the rules for a "settled" colony were said to be assimilated to the rules for a "conquered" colony.
.
Grafy - The link is not belittling Aboriginal People but as a parody of racism and has been seen as such around the world since blazing saddles.  Humour me here.  Please link to Aboriginal People at war with Papuans who were here first or withdraw it.  As for Mabo. I actually think they interpreted the evidence incorrectly in that Mabo was aligned with Islander culture not Aboriginal Cutlure as was the majority of Aboriginal Australia.

I never turned this into a debate about who was here first.  My argument is simple - dont refer to people who are coming, or trying to come, here as illegals unless your immediate descendants were invited here by people who actually owned the land they settled on.

But I suppose really by branding them as illegal it allows most to avoid actually thinking about it.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dazzler]

From Gene Wilder;

In another thread this video was misinterpreted as being racist.  It is NOT a racist video it is about racism and just about sums up the whole debate.

The white people move into new settlements on Indian land.
A black sherriff comes to town.
The whites treat him poorly based on his colour.
The black man does not understand why.
The thinking white guy then asked him what he expected would happen "Be welcomed", "Marry my daughter" and finally, identifies racists as 'Morons'.

Whew.  Sorry for the spoiler if you hadnt seen it yet.

cheers

Daz


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[grafy82]

In another thread this video was misinterpreted as being racist.  It is NOT a racist video it is about racism and just about sums up the whole debate.

The white people move into new settlements on Indian land.
A black sherriff comes to town.
The whites treat him poorly based on his colour.
The black man does not understand why.
The thinking white guy then asked him what he expected would happen "Be welcomed", "Marry my daughter" and finally, identifies racists as 'Morons'.

Whew.  Sorry for the spoiler if you hadnt seen it yet.

cheers

Daz


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dazzler,
I wasn't implying that you were being racist by posting up the YouTube clip and I understand exactly the message that is portrayed in the video. I just don't like the way you aimed it at me to say that I am racist. That seems to be the easiest way for anyone to win/end a debate these days, just tell the other person they're racist. I'm far from that mate.
 Not trying to sound like a hero or saviour of the masses, but my wife and I are involved in helping and providing care for Karen families that have escaped real persecution in their home countries (the father of the latest family has had his knees and legs smashed in an attack just before coming to Australia). The big difference is, they came here following the correct legal channels.

Anyway Dazzler, no hard feelings mate, you win.

[muzza01]

Lost - Here is ownership - Rejection of terra nullius: The decision recognised that the indigenous population had a pre-existing system of law, which, along with all rights subsisting thereunder, would remain in force under the new sovereign except where specifically modified or extinguished by legislative or executive action. The Court purported to achieve all this without altering the traditional assumption that the Australian land mass was "settled". Instead, the rules for a "settled" colony were said to be assimilated to the rules for a "conquered" colony.

I never turned this into a debate about who was here first.  My argument is simple - dont refer to people who are coming, or trying to come, here as illegals unless your immediate descendants were invited here by people who actually owned the land they settled on.

But I suppose really by branding them as illegal it allows most to avoid actually thinking about it.

Dazzler times have changed, laws have changed and what was once acceptable is now not.
 
You are trying to bring ancient history and ancient laws in to the 21th Century.  That doesn’t make sense. Back then ownership of a country was not decided by a law Court it was decided by occupation.  The English, French, Spanish and Dutch invaded countries, took what ever they wanted, slaughtered  anyone who stood in their way, turned survivors in to slaves and in some cases slaughtered entire civilisations.   Back in those times this was acceptable practice and there were no laws to protect original occupants. It was survival of the strongest.
 
In regards to us invading Australia,  I refuse to apologise for something that was done by the English over 200 years ago.  It could have been much worse if Australia had been settled by the ancient Romans or the Spanish. The would have slaughtered an entire race and there would be no one to apologise to.
 
In this day and age we try and make things fair, we have established new laws.  We recognise native titles and we try to protect countries from being invaded by others.
 
For boat people to lob up on our shores uninvited is illegal. The law has established the correct means of entering in to our country.
 
What my ancestors did over 200 years ago was not illegal. That was the way things were done. If the Yanks had not dropped a couple of H bombs in Japan, we would be all speaking Japanese right now.  Any Australians would be either dead or living life as a castrated  slave.
 

[Bird]

Dazzler times have changed, laws have changed and what was once acceptable is now not.
 
You are trying to bring ancient history and ancient laws in to the 21th Century.  That doesn’t make sense. Back then ownership of a country was not decided by a law Court it was decided by occupation.  The English, French, Spanish and Dutch invaded countries, took what ever they wanted, slaughtered  anyone who stood in their way, turned survivors in to slaves and in some cases slaughtered entire civilisations.   Back in those times this was acceptable practice and there were no laws to protect original occupants. It was survival of the strongest.
 
In regards to us invading Australia,  I refuse to apologise for something that was done by the English over 200 years ago.  It could have been much worse if Australia had been settled by the ancient Romans or the Spanish. The would have slaughtered an entire race and there would be no one to apologise to.
 
In this day and age we try and make things fair, we have established new laws.  We recognise native titles and we try to protect countries from being invaded by others.
 
For boat people to lob up on our shores uninvited is illegal. The law has established the correct means of entering in to our country.
 
What my ancestors did over 200 years ago was not illegal. That was the way things were done. If the Yanks had not dropped a couple of H bombs in Japan, we would be all speaking Japanese right now.  Any Australians would be either dead or living life as a castrated  slave.

save your electrons...

[muzza01]

save your electrons...

 
Don't get it.

[Barry G]

Finally I meet my match.  Or at least my ability to have any sort of dialogue that makes sense.

Lost - Here is ownership - Rejection of terra nullius: The decision recognised that the indigenous population had a pre-existing system of law, which, along with all rights subsisting thereunder, would remain in force under the new sovereign except where specifically modified or extinguished by legislative or executive action. The Court purported to achieve all this without altering the traditional assumption that the Australian land mass was "settled". Instead, the rules for a "settled" colony were said to be assimilated to the rules for a "conquered" colony.
.
Grafy - The link is not belittling Aboriginal People but as a parody of racism and has been seen as such around the world since blazing saddles.  Humour me here.  Please link to Aboriginal People at war with Papuans who were here first or withdraw it.  As for Mabo. I actually think they interpreted the evidence incorrectly in that Mabo was aligned with Islander culture not Aboriginal Cutlure as was the majority of Aboriginal Australia.

I never turned this into a debate about who was here first.  My argument is simple - dont refer to people who are coming, or trying to come, here as illegals unless your immediate descendants were invited here by people who actually owned the land they settled on.

But I suppose really by branding them as illegal it allows most to avoid actually thinking about it.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here be the winner!  Summed up in a single sentence. 

[grafy82]

Dazzler times have changed, laws have changed and what was once acceptable is now not.
 
You are trying to bring ancient history and ancient laws in to the 21th Century.  That doesn’t make sense. Back then ownership of a country was not decided by a law Court it was decided by occupation.  The English, French, Spanish and Dutch invaded countries, took what ever they wanted, slaughtered  anyone who stood in their way, turned survivors in to slaves and in some cases slaughtered entire civilisations.   Back in those times this was acceptable practice and there were no laws to protect original occupants. It was survival of the strongest.
 
In regards to us invading Australia,  I refuse to apologise for something that was done by the English over 200 years ago.  It could have been much worse if Australia had been settled by the ancient Romans or the Spanish. The would have slaughtered an entire race and there would be no one to apologise to.
 
In this day and age we try and make things fair, we have established new laws.  We recognise native titles and we try to protect countries from being invaded by others.
 
For boat people to lob up on our shores uninvited is illegal. The law has established the correct means of entering in to our country.
 
What my ancestors did over 200 years ago was not illegal. That was the way things were done. If the Yanks had not dropped a couple of H bombs in Japan, we would be all speaking Japanese right now.  Any Australians would be either dead or living life as a castrated  slave.
 

Oh stop it Muzza01, now you're being sensible. And besides, nobody likes the truth.

[BigJules]

This extracts are from the ABC fact checker, and are undisputed.

"While it is accurate to describe asylum seekers who enter Australia without a valid visa as "unlawful" or even "illegal entrants", it is not a criminal offence to enter Australia without a visa. Calling someone "unlawful" or an "illegal entrant" is a description of how they entered the country and determines the way authorities process them. It does not mean they have broken any law. Arriving without a visa can only result in criminal sanctions if there is some other offence involved such as falsifying a passport or forging a document.

An asylum seeker who is simply a passenger on a people smuggling vessel does not commit an offence by paying a smuggler for their passage. Section 233D of the Migration Act makes it an offence for someone to provide "material support or resources to another person or an organisation" which helps the "conduct constituting the offence of people smuggling". However, this section does not apply if the "conduct constituting the offence of people smuggling" relates to the person that was providing that support (i.e. if the support is given by the person being smuggled)."

"'Breaking the law' is generally understood to mean committing a criminal offence; persons arriving in Australia irregularly, especially asylum seekers, do not do that."

Times certainly have changed.

[muzza01]

Really! Are we going to debate the technical descriptions between words like Unlawful and Illegal?
OK fair enough. We will use the term unlawful.

Here are a couple of other descriptions:

Descriptions

Murder
The unlawful killing of another person where there is either the intent to kill, or the intent to cause grievous bodily harm with the knowledge that it was probable that death or grievous bodily harm would occur, or without intent to kill in the course of committing a crime.

Attempted Murder
The attempted unlawful killing of another person where there is either the intent to kill, or the intent to cause grievous bodily harm with the knowledge that it was probable that death or grievous bodily harm would occur but where death did not actually occur.

Steal Motor Vehicle
Unlawfully using a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner or the person in charge of that motor vehicle. 'Steal motor vehicle' excludes attempts to steal a motor vehicle, damaging or tampering/ interfering with a motor vehicle, or the theft of motor vehicle parts or the contents of a motor vehicle. For the purpose of this offence category, a motor vehicle is defined as a self-propelled vehicle that runs on a land surface (but is not restricted to rails or tram lines) and is eligible for registration for use on public roads, or could be made eligible for registration for use on public roads with modifications that would not change the essential nature of the vehicle. 'Steal motor vehicle' therefore excludes the theft of some types of motorised vehicle such as large mining trucks (super-haulers), gophers (motorised wheel chairs), golf carts, miniature motor cycles (pocket rockets), go carts and motorised bicycles/scooters, and also excludes the theft of trailers, semi-trailers or caravans (regardless of whether or not they were attached to a motor vehicle at the time of theft).

Theft
The unlawful taking or obtaining of money, goods or services, without the use of force, threat of force or violence, coercion or deception, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner or possessor of the use of the money or goods. This category of offence includes the theft of vehicle parts or the contents of a vehicle.

http://www.police.wa.gov.au/ABOUTUS/Statistics/CrimeOffenceDescriptions/tabid/1213/Default.aspx

[dazzler]

Dazzler,
I wasn't implying that you were being racist by posting up the YouTube clip and I understand exactly the message that is portrayed in the video. I just don't like the way you aimed it at me to say that I am racist. That seems to be the easiest way for anyone to win/end a debate these days, just tell the other person they're racist. I'm far from that mate.
Not trying to sound like a hero or saviour of the masses, but my wife and I are involved in helping and providing care for Karen families that have escaped real persecution in their home countries (the father of the latest family has had his knees and legs smashed in an attack just before coming to Australia). The big difference is, they came here following the correct legal channels.

Anyway Dazzler, no hard feelings mate, you win.

We must really be living in different worlds.  Here is what you said in response to my video;
"Dazzler, you missed my point too mate. I never intended to insult or belittle aboriginal people, as your condescending willy wonka YouTube clip portrays."

You actually state that my youtube clip insults / belittles aboriginal people.  The last thing I wanted was for anyone else on here to misinterpret what the video refers to. 

Which is why I wrote "In another thread this video was misinterpreted as being racist.  It is NOT a racist video it is about racism and just about sums up the whole debate."   

Any movement on the Papuan genocide.  I have googled, being a big boy and all, and cannot find a single reference?

[dazzler]

Dazzler times have changed, laws have changed and what was once acceptable is now not.
 
You are trying to bring ancient history and ancient laws in to the 21th Century.  That doesn’t make sense. Back then ownership of a country was not decided by a law Court it was decided by occupation.  The English, French, Spanish and Dutch invaded countries, took what ever they wanted, slaughtered  anyone who stood in their way, turned survivors in to slaves and in some cases slaughtered entire civilisations.   Back in those times this was acceptable practice and there were no laws to protect original occupants. It was survival of the strongest.
 
In regards to us invading Australia,  I refuse to apologise for something that was done by the English over 200 years ago.  It could have been much worse if Australia had been settled by the ancient Romans or the Spanish. The would have slaughtered an entire race and there would be no one to apologise to.
 
In this day and age we try and make things fair, we have established new laws.  We recognise native titles and we try to protect countries from being invaded by others.
 
For boat people to lob up on our shores uninvited is illegal. The law has established the correct means of entering in to our country.
 
What my ancestors did over 200 years ago was not illegal. That was the way things were done. If the Yanks had not dropped a couple of H bombs in Japan, we would be all speaking Japanese right now.  Any Australians would be either dead or living life as a castrated  slave.

Hi Muzza

Your off at a tangent here.  I am not suggesting we apologise for anything and yes, what happened in the past was quite acceptable back then.  My point is that we have all come here uninvited as there were people here before hand and it is hypocritical to call anyone 'illegal' unless of course they have entered 'illegally'.

And here is the thing.  People who overstay there visa's are here illegally.  Those that enter seeking asylum, as BigJules has stated, are not illegal.  Yet the media give the overstayers a free pass.  They are protected by the UN convention that we are signatures to.

cheers

Daz

[dazzler]

Really! Are we going to debate the technical descriptions between words like Unlawful and Illegal?
OK fair enough. We will use the term unlawful.

Here are a couple of other descriptions:

Descriptions

Murder
The unlawful killing of another person where there is either the intent to kill, or the intent to cause grievous bodily harm with the knowledge that it was probable that death or grievous bodily harm would occur, or without intent to kill in the course of committing a crime.

Attempted Murder
The attempted unlawful killing of another person where there is either the intent to kill, or the intent to cause grievous bodily harm with the knowledge that it was probable that death or grievous bodily harm would occur but where death did not actually occur.

Steal Motor Vehicle
Unlawfully using a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner or the person in charge of that motor vehicle. 'Steal motor vehicle' excludes attempts to steal a motor vehicle, damaging or tampering/ interfering with a motor vehicle, or the theft of motor vehicle parts or the contents of a motor vehicle. For the purpose of this offence category, a motor vehicle is defined as a self-propelled vehicle that runs on a land surface (but is not restricted to rails or tram lines) and is eligible for registration for use on public roads, or could be made eligible for registration for use on public roads with modifications that would not change the essential nature of the vehicle. 'Steal motor vehicle' therefore excludes the theft of some types of motorised vehicle such as large mining trucks (super-haulers), gophers (motorised wheel chairs), golf carts, miniature motor cycles (pocket rockets), go carts and motorised bicycles/scooters, and also excludes the theft of trailers, semi-trailers or caravans (regardless of whether or not they were attached to a motor vehicle at the time of theft).

Theft
The unlawful taking or obtaining of money, goods or services, without the use of force, threat of force or violence, coercion or deception, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner or possessor of the use of the money or goods. This category of offence includes the theft of vehicle parts or the contents of a vehicle.

http://www.police.wa.gov.au/ABOUTUS/Statistics/CrimeOffenceDescriptions/tabid/1213/Default.aspx

Hi again

If you are going to use law to discuss technical descriptions then you apply the definitions as defined within the law you are discussing. If you can't find it in the specific legislation then you look in the Acts Interpretation Act  -  http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012C00001
In this case you would use the 1951 Convention on Refugees;

http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/images/convention%20and%20protocol.pdf

This identifies who a refugee is and what they can do.  If you read the document you will see that it is not illegal to enter ANY country to seek asylum. 

The Australian Government ratified the Convention on Refugees.  We agreed to it.  This is why I get so peeved at the wagging the dog that successive governments have done in the name of votes. 

If you read the document that we signed up for, and can find where they are acting illegally, I would be mighty impressed!.

cheers

Daz

[Barry G]

Hi again

If you are going to use law to discuss technical descriptions then you apply the definitions as defined within the law you are discussing. If you can't find it in the specific legislation then you look in the Acts Interpretation Act  -  http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012C00001
In this case you would use the 1951 Convention on Refugees;

http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/images/convention%20and%20protocol.pdf

This identifies who a refugee is and what they can do.  If you read the document you will see that it is not illegal to enter ANY country to seek asylum. 

The Australian Government ratified the Convention on Refugees.  We agreed to it.  This is why I get so peeved at the wagging the dog that successive governments have done in the name of votes. 

If you read the document that we signed up for, and can find where they are acting illegally, I would be mighty impressed!.

cheers

Daz

You are dead right Dazzler, and the impetus for the document was the disgraceful way that so many nations treated refugees from Nazi Germany, leaving them to sail the world unsuccessfully seeking a haven, with some being forced to return to Nazi occupied Europe and, subsequently, death camps.

The civilised world, through the UN, said "never again" and the International Convention on Refugees was the result.

Of course many countries did not sign up, predominantly 'third world' nations, such as our Asian neighbours - many of which were still colonoys / fighting wars of independance at the time.

From what I can see the situations from which many refugees are coming constitute persecution the equivalent of that faced by Jews and other minority groups under the Nazis. 

Sadly, I don't think that the affluent nations in general will look to have had their finest hour when history looks back on the current period.

[Homer_Jay]

If we want to put it in the same context as when the 'whites invaded australia'. Does that mean we can defend with force? Just as some of the aboriginals did way back when.

We now need to peacefully defend our way of life. We can take in genuine refugees, but if the doors are open, our way of life will change, as it already is.
I don't agree with turning boats back at the risk of loosing life, as everyone's life is important. But surely some of the money we send overseas could be used to relocate these people safely back to where they came from and tell them to go about entry the correct way.


On the point of 'invasion by the whites' well, I hate to say it, but the aboriginals are either not real smart OR do NOT actually want reconciliation.
If Australia wasn't defended by the white people (yes along with people of other races) then the aboriginals wouldn't have one grain of sand they could call their own.
I think almost all white Australians want to live equally and have respect for the aboriginal people (just look at the way we accommodated and welcomed and were interested in the culture of a certain person on this forum last year). But the more that we 'reconcile' the more the aboriginal people push and push for more. This is what builds resentment.
IMHO there is more racism towards white people now days. (Oh, I don't mind being called white..... because I am!)
Do they really want equality? If so, why do they want preferential treatment?

I have as much pride in OUR country as any aboriginal person. But this bull$..... about 'invasion day' tips it over the edge for me and many people I know.
They say that we have gone backwards with  eliminating racism. Yeah, I 100% agree with that. But you don't need to look far to see why!