How a Labor Government Handles Immigration

Paul Sheehan, in a very well written article in the Sydney Morning Herald sums up what the Rudd Labor Government is doing to destroy Australia.

Just the asylum seeker and immigration aspects of Labor policy and action are painful enough without reading the whole article, but if you have the stomach for it, I encourage you to click the link above and read the whole litany of stupidity that has or is occurring.

Here's two excerpts regarding asylum seekers and immigration:

"Asylum seekers. Unless the government can show otherwise, it appears that about 98 per cent of asylum-seekers are getting Australian residency. In contrast, the latest figures from the United Nations refugee agency show most asylum applications worldwide are rejected. The bulging Christmas Island detention centre has become a grossly expensive sham and a mockery of a core election promise.

Migration. Permanent migration to Australia surged 550,000 during the first two years of the Rudd government, the highest two-year increase in history. This is at odds with the government's rhetoric on reducing Australia's carbon footprint. It was also never mentioned before the election."

Add those to the rest of the failures Mr Sheehan mentions and it's clear that we have a government as destructive as the Whitlam Government. What I need to ask is why did you vote Labor, knowing that they incur massive debts, let the unions run rampant, bend at the knees on immigration issues, and couldn't manage a budget to save their lives?

I sure as hell didn't vote for them. Someone must have.

When they get the boot, the new Liberal Government will be back doing the hard yards again to keep the country going.

Robin

The Language of Separation

Reading a newspaper recently, I noticed an advertisement for a leadership program for "Aboriginal and non-aboriginal leaders". I wondered how different Aboriginal leaders were to perhaps Asian leaders, Caucasian or perhaps African leaders. Why was it necessary to make this difference?

It's this habitual and invariable use of labelling and classification that affects the national sub-conscious. It exacerbates the idea of them, descendents of First Australians and us, descendents of the other four races. If you must know what race I am to provide me with a service, instead of writing on your forms "Are you indigenous or non-indigenous?" why not "What is your race?"

While governments spend millions on so-called reconciliation programs, they defeat themselves (and the people) by perpetuating a system of entrenched apartheid ... racist programs for a small minority of our population; separate schools, birthing units, health centres, job programs etc.

As long as we continue to tell people they are special, different and disadvantaged, they will remain special, different and disadvantaged and never become equal with mainstream Australia. As Governor General Sir Paul Hasluck said perhaps 30 years ago, "We've homogenised the milk, but not the people."

We need to eradicate this language of separation, racist policies and laws and use inclusive language that demonstrates a united Australian. Who really gives a rat's if someone's ancestors 30,000 years ago lived on the plains of Mongolia when there is so much to do today?

Until we begin to treat all Australians as Australians and provide help to people based on need and not genes, Australia will remain a country of division struggling to free itself from its history. The first step is to use language of inclusion and unity instead of language of separation.

Fearing for Freedom in a Post-Christian Europe

by David J. Rusin • Jan 31, 2010 at 11:06 pm

http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2010/01/fearing-for-freedom-in-a-post-christian-europe

This is a precautionary message for Australia and muslim immigration.

Sometimes it seems that European Christian leaders are more concerned with preparing their flocks fordhimmitude than with defending their faith and the civilization built around it. Among other infamies, prominent clerics have maintained that the acceptance of Shari'a law is "unavoidable," urged believers to refer to God as "Allah," suggested that Lent be rebranded as "Christian Ramadan," and insisted that Catholic schools incorporate Muslim prayer rooms.

But not all are content to watch Christianity "go gentle into that good night" — and often they specify secular reasons. Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Anglican bishop of Rochester, has argued that many of the freedoms and institutions enjoyed in Europe have Christian roots — and thus are put at risk by sidelining Christianity. Likewise, he has hammered the UK's multicultural policies as unmitigated failures that serve only to undermine societal cohesion, even fostering Islamist-run "no-go areas" in major cities.

Two leading prelates recently have echoed Nazir-Ali. First, in an online interview, retiring Czech CardinalMiloslav Vlk asserts that the spiritual vacuum is being filled by Islam — especially its most radical elements — and could result in the "fall of Europe." Second, George Carey, the ex-archbishop of Canterbury, uses an op-ed to contend that "tolerance, fair play, [and] pluralism" are not enough to define a nation, "so we must look also to language, institutions, and our shared history." Unfortunately, "some groups of migrants … are ambivalent about or even hostile to such institutions" and prefer to self-segregate in "ghettos" governed by Shari'a.

Stating that "there must be a willingness on their part to integrate with the rest of British society," he continues:

Is there anything distinctly Christian about such a call? Some will say "no." Our values lie rather with the Enlightenment than with the Church. I believe that history is against them. It is my firm view that our society owes more to our Christian heritage than it realizes and to overlook this inheritance of faith will lead to the watering down of the very values of tolerance, openness, inclusion, and democracy that we claim are central to all we stand for.

What undergirds liberal democracy: the Enlightenment, Christianity, or some other factors? Furthermore, is the Islamic faith by nature compatible or incompatible with such a system? Detailed answers are beyond the scope of this blog, but please note that the Middle East Forum has worked to advance the debate on the latter question. What is absolutely undeniable, however, is that the Christian, Enlightenment-shaped West has produced the freest nations on the planet, while Muslim-majority states now rank among the lowest in terms of social and political rights.

Therefore, is it "Islamophobic" to worry about how Europe will be affected by the decline of Christianity, the ascent of anything-goes multiculturalism, and the expansion of unassimilated Muslim communities originating from oppressive lands? No. For lovers of freedom — believers and non-believers alike — these concerns are both reasonable and necessary.

Related Topics: Interfaith, Islamic Law (Shari'a), Multiculturalism, Segregation | David J. RusinThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.