Wow. I just tripped over this thread today. What a mess. I still don’t understand what the OP is.
Peace: referring back to your MPSIMS post:
What do you mean by this? Are you just reflecting on the irony that she lied about her situation and then many people unwittingly held up that lie to promote feminist agendas?
Yes or no will be fine.
Yea, more or less. If yoy read down the thread, in order, it will make more sense.
Peace
in a manner of speaking…
jb
Yes DDG is totally right - during the Menzies years we had a “white Australia” policy. The fact that it was law at that time will never, ever make it “right”. Do you even damn well care about what was done to Australian Aboriginals during that time peace, cos it was pretty fucking ugly. They were literally hunted down and exterminated : in my lifetime that happened. During the Menzies years we even had the “dictation test” and you couldn’t come to our country unless you could speak at least 40 words in a totally arbitrary language.
So if you want to keep making comments about nations you have never lived in, go right ahead.
And if you actually fucking knew anything whatsoever about Aboriginal culture, you would actually know something about their attitude towards twins and about their affinity with the land; but hell, google doesn’t throw this information up, does it?
BTW - can you ever remain on topic??? It appears not.
Go google the “Mabo decision” before you ever put shit on us drunken, white, bisexual, Australian females. BTW - you still haven’t answered the question about your country of origin.
Am I proud of my nation’s history? Not at all. This is precisely why we have a national “sorry” day in our country. Just don’t say any more about Australia or America or New Zealand or any other country unless you can back it up with proof.
I apologise to everyone else on the board except peace.
wanker
Holy shit, that’s my kind of lady.
jb
peace
actually I’m not Australian. I’m a recent immigrant to this country. There’s no way I would qualify to immigrate to the US though.
I was attempting to point out your own charming double standard. Obviously this went over your head. But then I am beginning to wonder what doesn’t go over your head.
and peace?
look at a map. I’ll give you a clue. There are geographical reasons why Australia is sparsely populated around the edges. Look closely. Look again.
OK when that is too hard for you, come and ask the Australians why their country is not and never will be densely populated.
Reprise, I think you sound just a teensy bit defensive, babe. I’m sorry to make you feel that way–I didn’t mean to, when I posted my links. I suppose I’d feel the same way if the issue of Japanese-American internment camps during World War II came up.
I went looking for “Australian immigration quotas” after I read peace’s remark about Australia only recently opening her doors to immigration, because I just got done reading The Fatal Shore, along with some other books about Australia, and I remembered a bunch of stuff about quotas and the “Whites Only” policy. I didn’t think peace was quite as ignorant as Gaspode seemed to think he was. So, just as I got done with my Copy and Pasting and was ready to post, there was peace’s remark with its statistics. So it only looks as though we were in cahoots, but we really weren’t.
I think it’s possible you’re reading too much into peace’s statement about the low population in Australia. Frankly, I dunno how you got from the flat statement of an Aboriginal population of 1% to “aboriginal attitudes towards twins” and the Mabo Decision. I thought he was just saying, “Australia doesn’t let very many people in,” and was just quoting a statistic. Is this maybe a spillover from another thread? 
I would also like to remind everyone that we’re not debating “entrance requirements for Australian immigrants”, we’re debating “the granting of political asylum in the United States.”
We’re also not here to discuss the geographically-challenged. And we’re not here to discuss precisely who peace is, or how he got into the U.S., or how he feels about women. Bordering on a hijack here, folks. 
Would one of the Australians in this thread be so kind as to go look up the Australian requirements for granting political asylum to people?
PRIMAFLORA:I’m a recent immigrant to this country. There’s no way I would qualify to immigrate to the US though
Location: Brisbane Q Australia
For the life of me I could not reconcile these statements. But you crookedness does not stop here. First, you go off the thread and ask me personal questions. Then, when I answer them, you blame ME of going off topic. Look at Ducky. And learn.
PRIMAFLORA:Look at a map. I’ll give you a clue. There are geographical reasons why Australia is sparsely populated around the edges. Look closely. Look again.
I know that Australia is “geographically unfriendly” (not ‘around the edges’, though). My point was that it is underpopulated out of proportion, BECAUSE of its unfriendly immigration laws. You and the rest of SDoppers know it. Do not hide behind me.
REPRISE: I do not care about your bisexuality or trisexuality. Just be logical. And muster your courage to give me credit when it is due. Regardless it’s policies toward the Aborigines and the Aborigines policies toward twins, Australia had very restrictive immigration policies. Live with it. And I acknowledge that I do not know much about Aborigines. After all, it’s a small people living as far from me as possible. I never knew a single Aborigine. There are bigger peoples on Earth I do not know much about. I cannot know about everything. It appears that I know about too many things already and it makes you nervous.
Would one of the Australians in this thread be so kind as to go look up the Australian requients for granting political asylum to people?
No, Ducky, they are too coward for that. We, two Americans, can do that. They can badmouth America, but when it comes to this, Primaflora and millions of others come here. Many years ago I had a choice: I could immigrate to many countries, including English speaking ones, like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. South Africa even offered about $30,000 to white immigrants (it was at the height of the apartheid). I wanted to live in the U.S.A. Period. You were born here, you take it for granted. Not me. And America’s immigration policies are still the best in the world. Maybe that’s why it is, arguably, the best country in the world. Let these Aussies find the net migration balance: how many Aussies move here and how many Americans move there. Australia is a beautiful and wonderful country. I will definitely visit it one day. But I want to live here. Join me.
Peace
So you wanted to move here because it’s the greatest country on earth, but if someone is being persecuted or mutilated, they can’t come in? That isn’t very well thought out or compassionate.
jb
No, Jb. Again, you draw wrong conclusions. Go back to the classroom above and read my posts. If you already had read them and still do not get it: there are too many oppressed in the world. And they do not want to do much about themselves. And we cannot allow a few (whom?) in and keep the majority out. It would be very unfair and wrong. So, till you solve the problem, we should allow only political victims (perhaps, only selected political victims) in.
Peace
we should let in political refugees before we allow in people who may be tortured or mutilated? All because one woman lied about her clitoris?
One of the fellows who masterminded the Rwandan slaughter of the Tutsis by the Hutus was allowed into this country on false pretences, after the Hutu power was exiled from the country. Much of the world saw the Hutus chased out of rwanda, and assumed they were the victims. Since we allowed that guy in (can’t remember his name- I’m still looking), then we shouldn’t let any political refugees in.
jb
Jbwe should let in political refugees before we allow in people who may be tortured or mutilated? All because one woman lied about her clitoris?
No. We should do that because it’s our culture, history and tradition, it’s in our blood. FGM, slavery, etc. is very sad but we have to have priorities. This country was settled by political/religious refuges, not by FGM victims. Let us keep things in perspective.
The case of the Tutsi killer does not make the entire policy wrong. Actually, I asked that question yesterday, what kind of political refuges should be eligible? And that’s why I said “selected political victims” in my previous post.
Peace
thanks JB Farley! That was precisely what I was trying to get through to peace. He seems to think that it was all just ticketyboo that he got into the US but he wants the other buggers to be either like him ::shudder:: or meet his criteria. He comes across as saying that because one woman lied that is a reason to exclude a whole class of refugees.
peace, I don’t understand what you are not following (I could hazard a few guesses as to why you can’t follow it though ). I am a recent immigrant to this country is a statement in response to you calling me a vicious Australian. This country = Australia. I currently live in Australia but I am an immigrant. Clear now? And please quote me directly where I accused you of hijacking the thread. You will find that I never did. Possibly I commented on your twisting of the thread, but then I find that to be a common occurrence in threads that you bless with your presence.
No it’s not. America is a country of immigrants of all stripes. My people (the Irish) came because they were starving, not because they were persecuted.
Why should our priorities only be political refugees? This has never been the case.
This country was originally settled by people escaping religious persecution. By your logic, we should only admit those fleeing for religious reasons.
Exactly. And the woman who lied about FGM doesn’t make our policiy of accepting people escaping mutilation etc wrong. Pull your ass out of your head.
jb
**
Fair enough, that’s your belief! I wouldn’t even bother responding to Peace on this one, but since you obviously have an interest in facts and things Australian Duck, and I won’t be banging my head against a brick wall, I’ll address the issue.
Please compare this pearl of wisdom:
With the facts.
23% of Australians are born overseas. When one in four people is an immigrant this is hardly a slight opening of the doors.
27% of native born Australians have at least 1 OS born parent. This is not a ‘slight opening’ unless I’m missing something. 50% of all Australians are either immigrants or the children of immigrants.
The USA immigrant population comprised only 7.9% of the population in 1993, the UK 3.5% and Canada 16.1%. Australia actually has the highest immigrant population per capita of anywhere in the world besides Luxembourg. A statement that Australia has only slightly opened her immigration door is obviously ignorant.
In 1971 22% of Australians were foreign born. So for the last 30 years, at least, in excess of 1 in 5 Australians have been immigrants. The country is not quite 100 years old yet, so Peace’s definition of recent obviously requires more than 1/3 of the total time in existence of whatever is under discussion. Strange use of the word recent!
I only wish I could find figures for 1901.
If peace was taking that view, then he did so with his usual disregard for facts or any attempt at clarification, then or since. He mentioned only immigration, not the ethnic mix of such immigrants.
Peace is given to making these ill-informed, sweeping statements with frightening regularity. The statement is obviously ignorant, and I stand by what I said.
This will have no effect on what Peace chooses to believe, but hopefully goes some way to providing illumination to those truly interested.
PRIMAFLORA: I misread your post: I thought you claimed to be both Australian AND American (“this country” threw me off.) Do not get angry, hon.
Jb, I meant the founding of the country, in 17-18 centuries. I know about the famine, etc. But I said many times: we are unable to admit anyone who asks. Everyone wants to come here. Primaflora seems to be saying that she could not qualify (why?). That Tutsi killer did not want (couldn’t?) to go to any African country, including free South Africa, or Australia, or Japan. He wanted here. That E. Timorean leader came to the U.S. 20 years ago, not to nearby Australia. The Ghanaian woman was not admitted, because she stole her passport and lied about her motives, not because the INS wanted her clitor out. I am for some restrictions not because I am mean, or got lucky and is afraid of competition now. I challenged you all to come with coherent policies or at least some ideas to start, but… usual rambling and Peace bustling and (o) ideas (it was the depiction of an asshole and a zero in one).
Gaspode, you use you twisted (upside down) logic again. Or you do not understand the statistics. I suspect it is both. The numbers are such, because of relatively recent influx of immigrants. I.e., you confirm what I said. The U.S. population is roughly 14 times larger. Of course, the proportion of immigrants is higher in Australia. One large family immigrates to Luxembourg, and she beats all records!
About your last paragraph: read the statistic above. Repeat: 92% Caucasians, 7% Asians, 1% Native and other.
Peace
so did I. Since we were founded by people seeking escape form religious persecution, by your logic we should still only admit those fleeing religious persecution. Stop acting like an ignorant jerk would act and read people’s posts.
jb
Yes, I would only say “political” instead of “religious”. At least I say something.
I am saying it again: instead of doing what you do best (and love even more) - mocking at me, propose something practical.
Peace
I don’t have to propose anything practical. We have a good system here in the U.S. It is you, peace, who is proposing any changes. You give us a better alternative, or shut your booze hole.
jb
p.s.- nobody is buying your “Hee he, I will make fun of myself and neutralize all insults” tactic. Our barbs still sting