Under the UNHCR - The 1951 Refugee Convention refugees/asylum seekers are a separate issue to illegal immigrants. Most often illegal immigrants move to seek economic benefits in a new country rather than to escape persecution and in the public consciousness the two groups can be confused. This is often to the detriment of the geniune asylum seekers.
The problem is that Tony Abbott made it a key point of his platform to call them all "illegals" regardless their status to drum up voter support from Australia's sizeable righteous bogan population. He doesn't talk about asylum seekers or refugees - ever. He *only* talks about "illegals" and how he'll "stop the boats."
Look: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/04/29/tony-abbott-wrong-talk-illegals
Especially since he was born overseas himself (although not illegal still an immigrant) you would think he'd have at least a little empathy
2Reply
deleted
· 11 years ago
While I don't disagree with this but I do believe the key word here is illegal. Which focuses on those who don't work and contribute nothing back to our society but benefit from our hard work.
Oh come on, how racist can you get. You can't tell me it's only ever been 'white' people who have taken over another plot of land as their own. I seem to recall a lot of other countries, with no white people, have had wars and taken over because they saw fit to do so.
"first"
They were the first large group to begin doing it, and if you refer to small tribes conquering each other, that doesn't count, small tribes never murdered almost an entire race (Native Americans).
Also, they have changed history to try to shine a good light on what was a very horrible time, calling it "colonizing", when in all honesty there were people already there with their own systems of life.
And lastly, there's nothing racist about my comment, racism means a belief that one race is better than another, and my comment made zero implications of that.
Wow, your lack of knowledge about the course of history is disturbing. Just for shits and giggles, go watch the movie "300". And then maybe read up about Genghis Khan and the Aztecs. Remember, small tribes grow to big tribes by murdering the surrounding small tribes and sometimes the ball keeps rolling from there. But we all started from a very small tribe and thats why pointing out "White Imperialists" is a very racist thing..
It is not racist, go look up the definition or racism. And second of all, yes but none of those tribes were one entire race, the Indigenous people of South America still prevailed after Aztecs and other large tribes came to power unlike after Europeans began "colonizing" the area.
My first statement only said, that white imperialists were the first illegal immigrants, and I can't figure out how that is untrue. On a large scale yes they are.
p.s. I haven't heard of a tribe that tried to coup an entire continent, or while we're at it three entire continents and smaller sections of many others.
Um 300 is based on a comic, not real events..so I'm pretty sure that does not actually count. I'm white, first generation Australian (parents are English) and if you do a little bit of research you will see how atrociously white people (European 'settlers' or 'colonists') have treated indigenous folk of many countries in their aim to own more of the world. Pretty sure all the Native Americans and indigenous Australians were doing just fine before white folk came to steal the lands, rape, murder, spread disease and sickness!
@otherguest. No, 300 was based on actual events (although almost definitely exaggerated to some degree). @soccer you can think of it however you like, but throughout history there have been people taking over other places. You are just adding your own little parameters (which are wrong btw) to rule those earlier people out. Sizewise, the Mongol empire was just barely smaller than the British at the peak of their power (nearly 1/4 of the world). Considering 7 centuries separate the two, I would say the Mongol one is MUCH more impressive. Do you think all the area they conquered was uninhabited? or that the mongols were much nicer than the brits and didn't rape, steal, and pillage the people they invaded? And back to the 300 comment, the Persian empire at the peak of its power had nearly half of the world's population under it. But you are right, neither of these (or many others) are "large scale"
and to add to the above comment, (just the last one, the other guest comments aren't me) the reason your comment would be seen as racist is in your own definition of racism. You used the term white and used it as bad, implying you thought less of them than other races. After all, racism isn't just believing one race is better than others, but also believing one race isn't as good as others. And about the whole immigration thing. Pretty sure other than the very first people of the world, everybody is a descendant of an immigrant. Even "Native" Americans immigrated over to the country at some point
I'd like to point out that, Native Americans did indeed immigrate from somewhere else, but they peacefully claimed the land as their's because there was no one else there. Whereas...
The point I've been trying to make is, none of the people you guys mention managed to wipe out an entire race, so they couldn't have possibly "colonized" the areas they went to at such a large scale.
▼
deleted
· 10 years ago
yes i agree and at a time in australia people were actually taking the indigenous' children from their families because they weren't raised to the "proper standard"
Look: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/04/29/tony-abbott-wrong-talk-illegals
They were the first large group to begin doing it, and if you refer to small tribes conquering each other, that doesn't count, small tribes never murdered almost an entire race (Native Americans).
Also, they have changed history to try to shine a good light on what was a very horrible time, calling it "colonizing", when in all honesty there were people already there with their own systems of life.
And lastly, there's nothing racist about my comment, racism means a belief that one race is better than another, and my comment made zero implications of that.
My first statement only said, that white imperialists were the first illegal immigrants, and I can't figure out how that is untrue. On a large scale yes they are.
p.s. I haven't heard of a tribe that tried to coup an entire continent, or while we're at it three entire continents and smaller sections of many others.
The point I've been trying to make is, none of the people you guys mention managed to wipe out an entire race, so they couldn't have possibly "colonized" the areas they went to at such a large scale.