Welcome to Gaia! ::

HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
[Angry]

Are you serious?


Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.
Kaltros
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
[Angry]

Are you serious?


Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.


wikipedia
The term White Australia Policy comprises various historical policies that intentionally restricted non-white immigration to Australia. It came into fruition with Federation in 1901, and the policies were progressively dismantled between 1949 and 1973.
Competition in the goldfields, labour disputes and Australian nationalism created an environment of racial antagonism during the second half of the 19th century. Such factors led to the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act in 1901, one of the first Acts of the national parliament following federation. The passage of this bill is considered the commencement of the White Australia Policy as Australian government policy. Subsequent acts further strengthened the policy up to the start of World War II.[1] These policies effectively allowed for the privileging of British migrants over all others through the first decades of the 20th century.
The policy was dismantled in stages by several successive governments after the conclusion of World War II, with the encouragement of first non-British and later non-white immigration, allowing for a large multi-ethnic post-war program of immigration. The Menzies and Holt Governments effectively dismantled the policies between 1949 and 1966 and the Whitlam Government passed laws to ensure that race would be totally disregarded as a component for immigration to Australia in 1973. In 1975 the Whitlam Government passed the Racial Discrimination Act, which made racially-based selection criteria illegal. In the decades since, Australia has maintained largescale multi-ethnic immigration.
HMS Thunder Child's avatar

Magical Girl

Kaltros
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
[Angry]

Are you serious?


Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.
[Snide]

So what would you call a racist policy? The epitome of reason?
N3bu

My "support" for illegal immigration only exist so far as I recognise that the problem has to do with an immigration system that is too strict to deal with the demand for immigration.


In terms of the U.S., I'm not sure what demand for immigration you mean. Unemployment here is high enough already. We don't have enough jobs to go around as it is.

Quote:

My solution to illegal immigration would be characterised as "open borders" by Republicans even though that not actually it. There are certain realities that must be addressed immigration, customs for example, to ensure that people don't smuggle contraband, but that can still be achieved without making immigration take years, costing a family it's entire worth or enacting quotas.


So how does your position differ from open borders, then? Just the stuff you mentioned about screening for contraband, but otherwise allowing free movement?

And I still feel like you haven't answered the borders question. Does a nation have a right to control its own borders or not? If it does have the right, why should it reward illegal immigrants for breaking such a basic law?

Quote:

I grew up in a multicultural society, I find actively differentiating between immigrants by their place of birth as some kind of quality control as hilariously racist that almost always assume that Europeans are of good quality and that if nothing else, green speaks of good quality.


It's not just an assumption where I come from, but based on observed reality. Here in the U.S. we have observed that, statistically, different ethnic groups behave in significantly different ways. Blacks and Latinos are much more into criminal activity of various sorts than whites and asians, for instance. Blacks and Latinos also consistently do worse on test scores, and in the case of blacks learning a new language is no excuse. Asians tend to do significantly better on tests than blacks, latinos, and whites, and to be wealthier and more law-abiding than everybody else. These are observed statistical differences.

Not to mention various observed cultural differences.

Quote:

I live amongst first, second and third generation immigrants from Japan, China, Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, South Africa, Britain, Brazil, The US, India, Pakistan and Iraq. I consider the White Australia an blight on our history where our people and our government considered Asiatic and pacific people of lesser descent fit only to work on banana plantations.


So you consider multiculturalism a good in and of itself? Why? What's your reasoning behind that?
N3bu
Kaltros
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
[Angry]

Are you serious?


Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.


wikipedia
The term White Australia Policy comprises various historical policies that intentionally restricted non-white immigration to Australia. It came into fruition with Federation in 1901, and the policies were progressively dismantled between 1949 and 1973.
Competition in the goldfields, labour disputes and Australian nationalism created an environment of racial antagonism during the second half of the 19th century. Such factors led to the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act in 1901, one of the first Acts of the national parliament following federation. The passage of this bill is considered the commencement of the White Australia Policy as Australian government policy. Subsequent acts further strengthened the policy up to the start of World War II.[1] These policies effectively allowed for the privileging of British migrants over all others through the first decades of the 20th century.
The policy was dismantled in stages by several successive governments after the conclusion of World War II, with the encouragement of first non-British and later non-white immigration, allowing for a large multi-ethnic post-war program of immigration. The Menzies and Holt Governments effectively dismantled the policies between 1949 and 1966 and the Whitlam Government passed laws to ensure that race would be totally disregarded as a component for immigration to Australia in 1973. In 1975 the Whitlam Government passed the Racial Discrimination Act, which made racially-based selection criteria illegal. In the decades since, Australia has maintained largescale multi-ethnic immigration.


That's a nice summary/history of the policy, but doesn't really explain why the White Australia policy was bad.
Disa Uniflora's avatar

Perfect Hunter

9,450 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Jolly Roger 50
  • Brandisher 100
Kaltros
N3bu
Kaltros
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
[Angry]

Are you serious?


Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.


wikipedia
The term White Australia Policy comprises various historical policies that intentionally restricted non-white immigration to Australia. It came into fruition with Federation in 1901, and the policies were progressively dismantled between 1949 and 1973.
Competition in the goldfields, labour disputes and Australian nationalism created an environment of racial antagonism during the second half of the 19th century. Such factors led to the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act in 1901, one of the first Acts of the national parliament following federation. The passage of this bill is considered the commencement of the White Australia Policy as Australian government policy. Subsequent acts further strengthened the policy up to the start of World War II.[1] These policies effectively allowed for the privileging of British migrants over all others through the first decades of the 20th century.
The policy was dismantled in stages by several successive governments after the conclusion of World War II, with the encouragement of first non-British and later non-white immigration, allowing for a large multi-ethnic post-war program of immigration. The Menzies and Holt Governments effectively dismantled the policies between 1949 and 1966 and the Whitlam Government passed laws to ensure that race would be totally disregarded as a component for immigration to Australia in 1973. In 1975 the Whitlam Government passed the Racial Discrimination Act, which made racially-based selection criteria illegal. In the decades since, Australia has maintained largescale multi-ethnic immigration.


That's a nice summary/history of the policy, but doesn't really explain why the White Australia policy was bad.

"Because you don't know the answer to that question, I pity you."
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
[Angry]

Are you serious?


Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.
[Snide]

So what would you call a racist policy? The epitome of reason?


There, there. I already told you I prefer more than just feelings with a thin coating of words.

Feel free to take a shot at answering my original question in a reasonable way, though. "Why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?"
HMS Thunder Child's avatar

Magical Girl

Kaltros
It's not just an assumption where I come from, but based on observed reality. Here in the U.S. we have observed that, statistically, different ethnic groups behave in significantly different ways. Blacks and Latinos are much more into criminal activity of various sorts than whites and asians, for instance. Blacks and Latinos also consistently do worse on test scores, and in the case of blacks learning a new language is no excuse. Asians tend to do significantly better on tests than blacks, latinos, and whites, and to be wealthier and more law-abiding than everybody else. These are observed statistical differences.

Not to mention various observed cultural differences.
[Angry]

You haven't observed anything. You are abusing statistics, either through ignorance, bigotry, or a combination of both, and I presume option 3.

[Snide]

Why would I presume that, you ask? Look at your post history. You are a dead ringer for a white supremacist.
HMS Thunder Child's avatar

Magical Girl

Kaltros
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?
[Angry]

Are you serious?


Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.
[Snide]

So what would you call a racist policy? The epitome of reason?


There, there. I already told you I prefer more than just feelings with a thin coating of words.

Feel free to take a shot at answering my original question in a reasonable way, though. "Why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?"
[Angry]

I gave you an answer. That you are a bigot and thus refuse to accept it is of little concern to me.

Still, I'll spell it out for you. That you ask why it's wrong for them to keep Australia white shows that you have neither an issue with maintaining racial superiority nor an issue with obliterating the existence of native peoples.

You are a bigot and a moron. And don't even think to tone police me again. It is fallacious to disregard an argument simply due to the tone the person is taking. If a policy's goal is to ensure racial dominance of a group, it is racist.

[Snide]

If you simply cannot understand that, then I pity you.
Disa Uniflora
Kaltros
N3bu
Kaltros
HMS Thunder Child
[Angry]

Are you serious?


Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.


wikipedia
The term White Australia Policy comprises various historical policies that intentionally restricted non-white immigration to Australia. It came into fruition with Federation in 1901, and the policies were progressively dismantled between 1949 and 1973.
Competition in the goldfields, labour disputes and Australian nationalism created an environment of racial antagonism during the second half of the 19th century. Such factors led to the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act in 1901, one of the first Acts of the national parliament following federation. The passage of this bill is considered the commencement of the White Australia Policy as Australian government policy. Subsequent acts further strengthened the policy up to the start of World War II.[1] These policies effectively allowed for the privileging of British migrants over all others through the first decades of the 20th century.
The policy was dismantled in stages by several successive governments after the conclusion of World War II, with the encouragement of first non-British and later non-white immigration, allowing for a large multi-ethnic post-war program of immigration. The Menzies and Holt Governments effectively dismantled the policies between 1949 and 1966 and the Whitlam Government passed laws to ensure that race would be totally disregarded as a component for immigration to Australia in 1973. In 1975 the Whitlam Government passed the Racial Discrimination Act, which made racially-based selection criteria illegal. In the decades since, Australia has maintained largescale multi-ethnic immigration.


That's a nice summary/history of the policy, but doesn't really explain why the White Australia policy was bad.

"Because you don't know the answer to that question, I pity you."


Great, more feelings in what is supposed to be a forum of rational discussion. But, since we're quoting:

"Gentlemen of the court, there are times that I'm ashamed to be a member of the human race and this is one such occasion."
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
It's not just an assumption where I come from, but based on observed reality. Here in the U.S. we have observed that, statistically, different ethnic groups behave in significantly different ways. Blacks and Latinos are much more into criminal activity of various sorts than whites and asians, for instance. Blacks and Latinos also consistently do worse on test scores, and in the case of blacks learning a new language is no excuse. Asians tend to do significantly better on tests than blacks, latinos, and whites, and to be wealthier and more law-abiding than everybody else. These are observed statistical differences.

Not to mention various observed cultural differences.
[Angry]

You haven't observed anything. You are abusing statistics, either through ignorance, bigotry, or a combination of both, and I presume option 3.

[Snide]

Why would I presume that, you ask? Look at your post history. You are a dead ringer for a white supremacist.


Why don't you dig into the statistics you think I'm abusing and point out how I've misread them? Which statistics do you have in mind?
Kaltros
N3bu

My "support" for illegal immigration only exist so far as I recognise that the problem has to do with an immigration system that is too strict to deal with the demand for immigration.


In terms of the U.S., I'm not sure what demand for immigration you mean. Unemployment here is high enough already. We don't have enough jobs to go around as it is.

Quote:

My solution to illegal immigration would be characterised as "open borders" by Republicans even though that not actually it. There are certain realities that must be addressed immigration, customs for example, to ensure that people don't smuggle contraband, but that can still be achieved without making immigration take years, costing a family it's entire worth or enacting quotas.


So how does your position differ from open borders, then? Just the stuff you mentioned about screening for contraband, but otherwise allowing free movement?

And I still feel like you haven't answered the borders question. Does a nation have a right to control its own borders or not? If it does have the right, why should it reward illegal immigrants for breaking such a basic law?

Quote:

I grew up in a multicultural society, I find actively differentiating between immigrants by their place of birth as some kind of quality control as hilariously racist that almost always assume that Europeans are of good quality and that if nothing else, green speaks of good quality.


It's not just an assumption where I come from, but based on observed reality. Here in the U.S. we have observed that, statistically, different ethnic groups behave in significantly different ways. Blacks and Latinos are much more into criminal activity of various sorts than whites and asians, for instance. Blacks and Latinos also consistently do worse on test scores, and in the case of blacks learning a new language is no excuse. Asians tend to do significantly better on tests than blacks, latinos, and whites, and to be wealthier and more law-abiding than everybody else. These are observed statistical differences.

Not to mention various observed cultural differences.

Quote:

I live amongst first, second and third generation immigrants from Japan, China, Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, South Africa, Britain, Brazil, The US, India, Pakistan and Iraq. I consider the White Australia an blight on our history where our people and our government considered Asiatic and pacific people of lesser descent fit only to work on banana plantations.


So you consider multiculturalism a good in and of itself? Why? What's your reasoning behind that?

Demand to immigrate.

The focus on illegal immigration is legitimate, I won't say otherwise, but it is still used to avoid the issue. Whenever someone tries to say anything about a broken immigration system the immediate response is to focus on law breakers and ask why they shouldn't be punished. This is about trying to fix the reason they break the law in the first place.

Your also trying to assume control of my point and direct it elsewhere. I don't argue nations shouldn't have control, control however doesn't entail stoppage. I support nations having control, I also support nations using that control to allow people to more freely immigrate into said country.

Observed cultural and statistical difference are long based in observed cultural disparity brought about by being considered a sub-human class. Blacks and Latinos are ghettoised and criminalized by culture now because there is nothing they can do as a people to fix a problem that was created by white people in the first place. That is to say, by segregating black and Latinos in the first place and turning the system against them White people institutionalised the criminalization of minorities. This happens almost everywhere. Anywhere you see an honest to god minority culture, it started because the minorities couldn't integrate their culture with the local culture because the ethnic majority didn't want them. 20, 30 40 years later it bites them in the a** when those ethnic minorities distrust and segregate themselves from society by second nature. People refuse to acknowledge it because it is the most ******** shameful and awkward conversation ever. You would obviously disagree, so I know I can't convince you of this fact.

I don't have to assume Multiculturalism is good, I just have to assume that racism and segregation is bad. I don't even have to assume that. By just trying to stop racial discrimination in immigration policies Australia greatly increase it's multiculturalism.
Kaltros
N3bu


wikipedia
racially-based selection criteria


doesn't really explain why the White Australia policy was bad.

Uh.. Whut?

Will you state, for the record, to this forum and everyone on it.. that Racial Discrimination is good? Or not bad? How about Racial Segregation?
HMS Thunder Child's avatar

Magical Girl

Kaltros
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
It's not just an assumption where I come from, but based on observed reality. Here in the U.S. we have observed that, statistically, different ethnic groups behave in significantly different ways. Blacks and Latinos are much more into criminal activity of various sorts than whites and asians, for instance. Blacks and Latinos also consistently do worse on test scores, and in the case of blacks learning a new language is no excuse. Asians tend to do significantly better on tests than blacks, latinos, and whites, and to be wealthier and more law-abiding than everybody else. These are observed statistical differences.

Not to mention various observed cultural differences.
[Angry]

You haven't observed anything. You are abusing statistics, either through ignorance, bigotry, or a combination of both, and I presume option 3.

[Snide]

Why would I presume that, you ask? Look at your post history. You are a dead ringer for a white supremacist.


Why don't you dig into the statistics you think I'm abusing and point out how I've misread them? Which statistics do you have in mind?
[Annoyed]

FBI Uniform Crime Reports are the White Supremacist's go to guide for "justifiable" racism.

[Snide]

I could tell you that the methodology entirely ignores the effects of racial profiling, and the scope of the report does not even include historical basis, but you, as a white supremacist, would ignore it.

[Annoyed]

I am reminded of how in the mid 18th to early 19th Century, Irish and black populations were believed to both be naturally frail and infirm. The commonly held belief ignored the consequences of socially mandated and enforced poverty on people. The commonly held belief also changed as society saw fit to justify their prejudices, as black people were traditionally argued to be of superior physique to white people which justified their enslavement as they were quote unquote subhumanly strong in both body and constitution.
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
HMS Thunder Child
Kaltros
HMS Thunder Child
[Angry]

Are you serious?


Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.
[Snide]

So what would you call a racist policy? The epitome of reason?


There, there. I already told you I prefer more than just feelings with a thin coating of words.

Feel free to take a shot at answering my original question in a reasonable way, though. "Why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?"
[Angry]

I gave you an answer. That you are a bigot and thus refuse to accept it is of little concern to me.

Still, I'll spell it out for you. That you ask why it's wrong for them to keep Australia white shows that you have neither an issue with maintaining racial superiority nor an issue with obliterating the existence of native peoples.


Immigration policy is not the same thing as ethnic cleansing at all. Deporting someone or refusing them entry is not the same as killing them. The difference shouldn't be that hard to see.


Quote:

You are a bigot and a moron. And don't even think to tone police me again. It is fallacious to disregard an argument simply due to the tone the person is taking. If a policy's goal is to ensure racial dominance of a group, it is racist.


Let me see if I understand your argument. It seems to be "It's racist, and racism is bad!" Did I understand your argument correctly?

And your argument seems to have a lot of unspoken assumptions, such as, apparently, that the inhabitants of a country have no right to control their own borders and that anybody should be able to immigrate absolutely anywhere without consequence or the consent of the people whose country you move into.

You ought to bring more of the assumptions behind your argument out front so I can understand it better.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games