Richard Dawkins Smacks Down on Rick Perry

[Nev]

Dunno what it's like elsewhere, but we have this .  Though it has been argued that under these guidelines people like Gandhi, Aung San Su Kyi and Nelson Mandela would fail.

We don't. Even if you're a convicted murderer, you're welcome in my country for some fucking reason. But if you are, I'd still like we knew that from the start instead of finding out the bad way later.

Exploitation of labour laws and the lack of basic human rights in the third world?

Nope. Rules, procedures and laws mostly. The lack of corruption as compared to the third world.

1) Labour laws aren't nearly as exploited as in the third world countries.

2) If they don't have human rights, what stops them from taking them? After the world War II, my country was exactly like a third world nation. We didn't have food, industry or anything. On top of that, we had to pay massive war reparations to the soviets. Yet we worked ourselves out of the pit, even without the Marshall plan. If we could do it, why is it that most poor countries can't?

This I've always wondered.

[NERMAL]

So your problem is with "ethnics"?    What exactly does your use of "ethnic" mean?  I hope to Christ it's not "non-white".

As for "open door" - I personally wasn't advocating that at all, and I don't know if anyone else was either.  I was talking particularly about boat arrivals seeking asylum.  We have over 150,000 (conservatively) immigrants every year.  In 2010 we had nearly 7000 asylum boat arrivals (which was the highest ever - previous year 2849, this year 1675 to June 30).  So 4% give or take arrived by boat.  It's a small amount of people who deserve to be treated humanely while their claims are processed.

It's not too much to ask - despite what politicians, tabloid media and rabid right wingers will have you believe.

No, I don't mean non-white.  I apologize if that came off the wrong way. I meant anyone not already in the country seeking to set up here without going through the legal protocols. That could also include Brazilians, English and Irish backpackers, Indonesians...anyone. Be it you snuck in by boat, or over stayed your student visa. I have met all of the above.

[Neltharion]

If that stops our countries from becoming like their countries, yes. Anarchy is never a good solution. Where do you think they (and we) will go after the whole world is a gigantic third-world country? Tying into that, illegal immigration costs like a motherfucker to the state.

But it wont even cause our "civilized" countries to fall into chaos. And yes, Illegal Immigration is a problem, but there is a vast difference between an illegal immigrant and an asylum seeker. One has a right to stay in our "civlized" country.

And even then the Illegal Immigrant is not always here for nefarious purposes.

There's a reason the west is rich and well-being. Well, at least moreso than most of south and east. The levels of corruption there are something unbelievable. That's what happens when you give up rationality for emotionality.

We exploited, exploit and will continue to exploit the developing nations? I know its great cause it works for us, but try to imagine what it would be like being the other way round. Yea its cliched, I know.

Yes. If we weren't, the flow of immigrants would go in the other direction.

You are totally Trolling us right? You have got to be? Or did Nightwalker hack your account?

The only argument I can raise in support of immigration from developing nations is to increase the pool of taxable workers. In a nation and economic environment that has an aging population, it is the only option besides increasing tax rates. Unfortunately we do not have a robust, growing economy generating new jobs. Instead we have lay offs, forced redundancies, and retirees who can not afford to retire due to the GFC.

You have the strongest economy in the "West". Less than 5% unemployment, 2.9% GDP growth and have only a £20 Billion deficet which you could get rid of within 5 years.

You guys are where I will be heading once I get my MGeol over in Scotland, because thats where the money is. Thats where the growth is. Australia.

You mind if come in? I'll be an immigrant after all, careful I might rape and murder my way across!

Note: I wont actually murder and rape my across Australia. Just illustrating a point

[deezelboy]

1) Without procedures and laws we wouldn't be the civilized, rich west. We'd be the same kind of shithole than the country the junta is terrorizing.

I'm not suggesting all procedures be jettisoned, just that they are flexible depending on the circumstances.   In the case of a military junta wanting to kill Dad, what's to be gained by all relevant procedures having to be fulfilled while Dad is killed.  Surely it makes more sense to apply the procedures while Dad's in a safe place?  You can always kick him out if he doesn't meet the requirements.

I challenge every bleeding heart liberal to personally adopt an ethnic immigrant family.

That's kind of an odd challenge, isn't it?

You'd prefer to see the resources put into aged care?  Well, sir, I challenge you to personally adopt an old person.  Health care?  Well, sir, I challenge you to personally adopt a terminally ill patient in need of palliative care.  Low income subsidies?  Well, sir, I certainly hope you are well-off to personally subsidise a low income family.

 

If we could do it, why is it that most poor countries can't?

Wealth generates wealth.

Post WWII, your country was in much the same state of most of Europe - it was to some extent a level playing field.  Yes, no Marshall Plan and a large war debt, but also trusted enough to receive large loans from the US and the Reconstruction & Development bank at generous rates.  Yes, industry reasonably fucked, but the people who had originally put it in place still there and to do it rapidly.  Most importantly, nobody wanted Finland and/or the rest of Europe to stay down - we are all very lucky that the US considered reconstruction vital.

Poor countries, now: tricky.  How to get money?  Sell goods to rich countries.  Borrow.  Either way, rich countries hold all the cards.  They're quite happy to bitch about poor standards of human rights and labour laws, equally happy to buy at knock-down prices the sweatshop fruits of those poor standards.  Have to sell at those prices, or they won't pay, and if they don't pay there's no way to pay the interest off the last loan.  Difficult.

And through it all, still problems of being poor.  Low standard of education, comparatively.  Low standard of health care, comparatively.  Low representation on international trade legislation.  High rate of corruption.  Very difficult to advance standing, comparatively.  So keep staying poor.

[Nev]

But it wont even cause our "civilized" countries to fall into chaos. And yes, Illegal Immigration is a problem, but there is a vast difference between an illegal immigrant and an asylum seeker. One has a right to stay in our "civlized" country.

And even then the Illegal Immigrant is not always here for nefarious purposes.

If the asylum seeker is proven to be a rapist/killer on the border, I don't give a fuck what happens to him. Without the regulations applied to asylum seekers scum like that could gain entry. Not to mention not all asylum seekers actually need one.

We exploited, exploit and will continue to exploit the developing nations? I know its great cause it works for us, but try to imagine what it would be like being the other way round. Yea its cliched, I know.

Yeah, it's exploitation of the worst kind how we shell billions and billions of monetary aid over there each year. How come it doesn't show?

You are totally Trolling us right? You have got to be? Or did Nightwalker hack your account

 

[Nev]

I'm not suggesting all procedures be jettisoned, just that they are flexible depending on the circumstances.   In the case of a military junta wanting to kill Dad, what's to be gained by all relevant procedures having to be fulfilled while Dad is killed.  Surely it makes more sense to apply the procedures while Dad's in a safe place?  You can always kick him out if he doesn't meet the requirements.

In many cases an asylum seeker is revealed to be a convicted criminal, and talks of getting him kicked out start. Then, a swarm of bleeding heart "humanists" from the Palace Of Righteous Justice go apeshit and start demanding this criminal be granted asylum 'cos that's the humane thing to do. Even if this scum continued his criminal activities, he ain't gonna be kicked out once he's in.

I'd rather get these individuals turned away at the border than invited here to terrorize us under the protection of the so-called intellectual elite.

Wealth generates wealth.

Post WWII, your country was in much the same state of most of Europe - it was to some extent a level playing field.  Yes, no Marshall Plan and a large war debt, but also trusted enough to receive large loans from the US and the Reconstruction & Development bank at generous rates.  Yes, industry reasonably fucked, but the people who had originally put it in place still there and to do it rapidly.  Most importantly, nobody wanted Finland and/or the rest of Europe to stay down - we are all very lucky that the US considered reconstruction vital.

Poor countries, now: tricky.  How to get money?  Sell goods to rich countries.  Borrow.  Either way, rich countries hold all the cards.  They're quite happy to bitch about poor standards of human rights and labour laws, equally happy to buy at knock-down prices the sweatshop fruits of those poor standards.  Have to sell at those prices, or they won't pay, and if they don't pay there's no way to pay the interest off the last loan.  Difficult.

And through it all, still problems of being poor.  Low standard of education, comparatively.  Low standard of health care, comparatively.  Low representation on international trade legislation.  High rate of corruption.  Very difficult to advance standing, comparatively.  So keep staying poor.

Development aid is comparable to those loans we had. How come they haven't been able to do anything visible with it?

Also, there's the strange phenomenon of third worlders not giving a shit about their own people. Take Somali pirates, for instance.

First they bitch about how westerners are taking all their fish. Then, they go pirates, because allegedly it's the only option. Then, they get rich by kidnapping, extorting and murdering people.

And what do they do with their new-found wealth? According to a documentary I saw, they buy cars and houses and give nothing back to their country. And still this is somehow the West's fault.

[deezelboy]

In many cases an asylum seeker is revealed to be a convicted criminal, and talks of getting him kicked out start. Then, a swarm of bleeding heart "humanists" from the Palace Of Righteous Justice go apeshit and start demanding this criminal be granted asylum 'cos that's the humane thing to do. Even if this scum continued his criminal activities, he ain't gonna be kicked out once he's in.

I'd rather get these individuals turned away at the border than invited here to terrorize us under the protection of the so-called intellectual elite.

So things turn nasty in a country, and a programme of death is instituted.  Maybe it's along ethnic lines, maybe they've just decided that some form of sexuality deserves the death sentence, maybe it's political affiliation.  Whatever.

You've got a bunch of people who have just turned up at your border claiming asylum.  They think they're gonna be dead if they get returned to their country.

Just on the off chance that maybe one of them might be a bad person, you throw them all back? 

Who are these intellectual elite of whom you speak of?

Development aid is comparable to those loans we had. How come they haven't been able to do anything visible with it?

I think if you look at nearly all Third World countries, there have been considerable improvements thanks to development aid.  But the rest of the world does not stand still to wait. 

Also, there's the strange phenomenon of third worlders not giving a shit about their own people. Take Somali pirates, for instance.

Alas, the incidences of criminals going all Robin Hood are very very rare, regardless of the wealth of a country.

And still this is somehow the West's fault.

Um... how?

[NERMAL]

You'd prefer to see the resources put into aged care?  Well, sir, I challenge you to personally adopt an old person.  Health care?  Well, sir, I challenge you to personally adopt a terminally ill patient in need of palliative care.  Low income subsidies?  Well, sir, I certainly hope you are well-off to personally subsidise a low income family.

I take care of my mum financially. I paid my grand mothers bills when she went from cancer. I support three dependants plus myself. I make about AUD$1000 in the hand per week. All is after tax, no cash in hand, and includes family support payments. My mortgage, bills, expenses, fees, food, utilities etc eat up about 80% of my income. We take in overseas homestay students to make ends meet. My wife takes tour groups on occaisional weekends when the work is available, which is intermittently. So no, not well off. At least not by Australian standards. By 3rd world standards, yes. And that is more often the attraction for 'Asylum Seekers'. Afghanistan borders several countries, but none of them seem quite good enough to settle in. Why is that? They'll even pass in proximity of India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia on their way here. Whats wrong with those countries? And despite being a 3rd world country rife with poverty and destitution, they'll still be able to pony up $1000s to give a smuggler for a ticket on a boat. Everything I have has been through the toil of my own two hands. I didn't look over the fence in my neighbour's yard and decide that what he has should be shared. I'm all for charity. Really, I am. I tithe in church, buy a legacy badge every year, donate blood, help in the school tuck shop, and kick in more than a few dollars whenever mother nature rears her ugly head. My wife sponsers two children through Compassion. Some will argue my charitable leanings are more for my own self esteem as opposed to a generosity of heart. I know I sound like a bigot. I apologise for any misunderstanding.

[Nev]

So things turn nasty in a country, and a programme of death is instituted.  Maybe it's along ethnic lines, maybe they've just decided that some form of sexuality deserves the death sentence, maybe it's political affiliation.  Whatever.

You've got a bunch of people who have just turned up at your border claiming asylum.  They think they're gonna be dead if they get returned to their country.

Just on the off chance that maybe one of them might be a bad person, you throw them all back?

I think it's preferable to a foreigner allegedly on the run from violence and terror inflicting same violence and terror on those who are helping him. Never been a fan of this "bigger person"-self-sacrifice-crap. And what do you mean "off-chance"? Considerable amount of asylum seekers are not actually in need of an asylum. At least around here. They know when they pop the magic word (asylum) they're as good as already in. EU and stuff.

Who are these intellectual elite of whom you speak of?

Left-winger politicans and celebrities, mostly. Even most of the ultra-capitalistic Coalition Party is on the bandwagon with them, knowing it'll get them votes.

I think if you look at nearly all Third World countries, there have been considerable improvements thanks to development aid.  But the rest of the world does not stand still to wait. 

Still. They've been trying to get on their feet for decades already. How much longer they need?

Alas, the incidences of criminals going all Robin Hood are very very rare, regardless of the wealth of a country.

Um... how?

The filthy-rich pirates accused the West of everything that is wrong with Africa, even when they were sitting on beach chairs in front of their latest yachts. The feedback this programme got on the internet and in the newspapers was mind-boggling; most contributors seemed to agree with the pirates.

[deezelboy]

...I apologise for any misunderstanding.

Hey, it's fine.  I can just about support my family - as much as I'd like to help with whatever my beliefs might be, financially I'm screwed.  

Afghanistan borders several countries, but none of them seem quite good enough to settle in. Why is that? They'll even pass in proximity of India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia on their way here. Whats wrong with those countries?

Most of them don't pass through.  Pakistan had around 5 million Afghan refugees at the end of 2001.  India - around 9,000.  Indonesia's picking up something like a hundred or so every month, or were last year.

The UNHCR's been trying to shift small numbers to the First World to take the strain off the poorer countries, who are bearing the brunt due to close proximity.  

[deezelboy]

I think it's preferable to a foreigner allegedly on the run from violence and terror inflicting same violence and terror on those who are helping him. Never been a fan of this "bigger person"-self-sacrifice-crap.  And what do you mean "off-chance"?

I don't think there's any sacrifice involved.  You have a chance to save a bunch of people from being killed.  You know nothing about them. You either take them on or you send them back to their deaths.  At least by taking them on you have a chance to find out something about them, and to work out whether taking them on is a good thing or not.

Considerable amount of asylum seekers are not actually in need of an asylum. At least around here. They know when they pop the magic word (asylum) they're as good as already in. EU and stuff.

True, but that's why we have procedures.  When they're determined not to be in need of asylum, they're sent back.  The only difference in doing it in your country or where they came from is that they are potentially safer in your own country.

Still. They've been trying to get on their feet for decades already. How much longer they need?

Until conditions change so that the rich countries are no longer rich and the poor countries take their place.  Wealth and poverty are relative.

The filthy-rich pirates accused the West of everything that is wrong with Africa, even when they were sitting on beach chairs in front of their latest yachts. The feedback this programme got on the internet and in the newspapers was mind-boggling; most contributors seemed to agree with the pirates.

I'd agree that the First World has played quite a considerable historical role in fucking up Africa, as has the Second World.  But I think it's pretty evident that the West's role in Somalia's more recent collapse was marginal. 

[Nev]

I don't think there's any sacrifice involved.  You have a chance to save a bunch of people from being killed.  You know nothing about them. You either take them on or you send them back to their deaths.  At least by taking them on you have a chance to find out something about them, and to work out whether taking them on is a good thing or not.

Yes, but what if one or more of these people rape, kill or mug someone while they're waiting for their request to be processed? That's the part that puts me off so. There's a potential to cause harm to our own people, when we aren't in any way obligated to take asylum seekers in in the first place. Cold, I know, but that's rational thinking for you.

And just for the record, I'm not as strict in this matter as I might seem; I enjoy a good debate every now and then.

True, but that's why we have procedures.  When they're determined not to be in need of asylum, they're sent back.  The only difference in doing it in your country or where they came from is that they are potentially safer in your own country.

See above.

Until conditions change so that the rich countries are no longer rich and the poor countries take their place.  Wealth and poverty are relative.

This doesn't still explain how my country could do it with much less. With this I'm referring to the vast natural riches many African countries have, which we have always lacked. When these natural riches are combined with the sizable development aid, I don't see why not even one of the third world countries have been able to get their shit together in all this time.

[SM]

Yes, but what if one or more of these people rape, kill or mug someone while they're waiting for their request to be processed? That's the part that puts me off so.

Do you have any stats to how often this actually has happened?  If it was a regular occurrence then I'd say you'd have a good point.  Otherwise...

Oh and Nermal, next time you apologise for your considered, though not agreeable, opinion - I'll neg ya.

[Nev]

Do you have any stats to how often this actually has happened?  If it was a regular occurrence then I'd say you'd have a good point.  Otherwise...

No stats, no, but it does happen. One might argue even one case is too many.

[Hieronymus]

Yes, but what if one or more of these people rape, kill or mug someone while they're waiting for their request to be processed? That's the part that puts me off so. There's a potential to cause harm to our own people, when we aren't in any way obligated to take asylum seekers in in the first place. Cold, I know, but that's rational thinking for you.

Better cut off all tourism too.  Any one of those picture-taking, crappy-souvenir-buying hooligans could be waiting for the perfect opportunity to rape someone.  Hey, even one is too many.