John Howard Tells Radical Muslims To Get Out

[AngusThermopyle]

Good for John Howard. He's shown the world that he has a very strong streak of good sense with this move. A move I personally strongly applaud, and one which our politicians could learn from.

Embrace Our Values or Leave, Australia Tells Islamists

By Patrick Goodenough

CNSNews.com International Editor

August 25, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - The Australian government has stepped up a campaign against radical Muslims, saying those wanting to live under Islamic law or refusing to accept "Australian values" should leave. At the same time, it plans to monitor mosques to ensure that radical messages are not being taught.

Prime Minister John Howard said Thursday the government wanted "to penetrate the Islamic community and to try and get to the people who are preaching support for terrorism" to ensure that youngsters in particular were not being influenced.

He said he was not perturbed by competing religious claims -- people saying their religion was superior and labeling others infidels -- "but when it comes to praising people who are clearly terrorists ... that is not okay."

In an earlier radio interview, Howard said the government realized it could not change the minds of "hardened fanatics." They had to be identified and acted against. The main aim was to prevent those extremists from influencing young and impressionable Muslims.

Asked whether the authorities would keep a watch on mosques and Islamic schools, Howard replied: "Yes, to the extent necessary.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus....hive/20050.html

I'm sure some of the "airy fairy" crowd will be offended by this, however by making this statement Howard is helping to ensure the safety of those people as well. You just have to love that take no sh*t Aussie attitude.

Edited November 14, 2007 by AngusThermopyle

[buffycat]

While I agree that NO one wants to have disruptive forces operating within one's own borders, and yes those who do want to cause serious shit should leave - this sort of rhetoric can lead to bigger problems as it condones a racist attitude.

What of the Aussies who may harbour less than savoury ideals? Where's Rotten John going to send them? Tasmania? What of radical Christians, like End Time believers who want Armaggedon to have started yesterday? Where's Johnny going to ship them off too?

Singling out one distasteful group and paying no lip service to others is NOT the way to fix this.

Oh, and I'm in NO way airy fairy.

[AngusThermopyle]

I don't believe I said you were airy fairy Buffycat.

You raise some good points, however what would you suggest he do instead? Do you think it's a good idea in the interest of fairness to allow Radical groups to operate unhindered in ones country?

As for singling out Radical Muslims, I find it to be perfectly understandable as these Radicals are the ones causing problems. As to where they would go, well, obviously back to where they came from. That way they could practice their Sharia Law to their hearts content without imposing it upon anyone else.

If you read the entire article it's really very hard to muster a rational argument against what he says.

[M.Dancer]

Good for John Howard. He's shown the world that he has a very strong streak of good sense with this move. A move I personally strongly applaud, and one which our politicians could learn from.

Holy League of last year's news Batman!!

[guyser]

Holy League of last year's news Batman!!

..er...umm last years?

How about....August 25th 2005 ...

Australia has always been for Australians. Not surprised , and frankly with some of the antics that go on, some people willingly move away.

[AngusThermopyle]

Oops!

Sorry guys, I didn't check the date when a friend forwarded the link to me.

I Still like his attitude though. As for Australia being just for Australians, well, have you ever lived there? I have and I found them to be friendly warm people. I guess to fit some etherial ideal we should all just welcome any form of Radical into our countries, right?

[guyser]

Oops!

Sorry guys, I didn't check the date when a friend forwarded the link to me.

I Still like his attitude though. As for Australia being just for Australians, well, have you ever lived there? I have and I found them to be friendly warm people. I guess to fit some etherial ideal we should all just welcome any form of Radical into our countries, right?

Hey, no biggie on the date , well except for ribbing you about it.

No I have not. Friends have and they all concur. One was posted to Darwin (worked in the Phillipines) and his friends were all military. He , like others, were quite adamant that AU is for AU's judging by the way they treated immigrants.

I dont doubt the people are warm and friendly , especially if you are white and a quasi tourist. I think the aboriginals have a bit to say about that too.

Hell , Id love to go there, from Jan to March, so I am not flaming aussie land.

[MMT]

How about Swiss? Aren't they proclaiming the same? If you do not respect domestic rules - get out! Wasn't the last parlamentary elections couple of weeks ago all about that? Or you think it's a different story?

[jbg]

Oops!

Sorry guys, I didn't check the date when a friend forwarded the link to me.

I Still like his attitude though. As for Australia being just for Australians, well, have you ever lived there? I have and I found them to be friendly warm people. I guess to fit some etherial ideal we should all just welcome any form of Radical into our countries, right?

If Kevin Rudd takes a different position he may have to deal with his own peoples' dislike of disruptive outsiders (link to New York Times article).

[Black Dog]

If Kevin Rudd takes a different position he may have to deal with his own peoples' dislike of disruptive outsiders (link to New York Times article).

fix'd

[ScottSA]

It's not clear to me what exactly is wrong with a country not wanting foreign troublemakers immigrating. Or, for that matter, anyone at all immigrating. I'm still waiting to be shown some form of moral imperitive that countries in the west are somehow under an obligation to become multicoloured stewpots.

[guyser]

It's not clear to me what exactly is wrong with a country not wanting foreign troublemakers immigrating. Or, for that matter, anyone at all immigrating. I'm still waiting to be shown some form of moral imperitive that countries in the west are somehow under an obligation to become multicoloured stewpots.

Not wanting troublemakers is universal. Nobody wants them, be it left right or centre.

As for moral imperative, I would think that is merely what good and prosperous nations do to alleviate the numbers in trouble spots. I suppose the moral imperative is altruism, we cant just leave "all" of the troubled to deal with the problems that particular area may have.

As for economics reasons, this site is as good as any ....

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html (it is USA based-as is the next one)

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/JEL94.pdf

This next one is a leafless one. It has a section on who they are, but doesnt really say who they are. It seems in many ways farfetched.But nonetheless it is a counter. (not much out there for canada with a google search).

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/inde...dule=pagemaster

[ScottSA]

Not wanting troublemakers is universal. Nobody wants them, be it left right or centre.

As for moral imperative, I would think that is merely what good and prosperous nations do to alleviate the numbers in trouble spots. I suppose the moral imperative is altruism, we cant just leave "all" of the troubled to deal with the problems that particular area may have.

As for economics reasons, this site is as good as any ....

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html (it is USA based-as is the next one)

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/JEL94.pdf

This next one is a leafless one. It has a section on who they are, but doesnt really say who they are. It seems in many ways farfetched.But nonetheless it is a counter. (not much out there for canada with a google search).

http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/inde...dule=pagemaster

Lol...you obviously don't read the sites you post. The first one you're relying on is 1995, and has to do with the US immigration stats at that time...no where else. Further, it doesn't say what you're hoping it says.

The second one you post is also from the early 90s, and concludes exactly the opposite of what you're hoping it does:

"The new research established a

number of new stylized facts: The relative

skills of successive immigrant waves

declined over much of the postwar period;

it is unlikely that recent immigrants

will reach parity with the earnings of natives

during their working lives; although

there is only a weak negative correlation

between the presence of immigrants in a

local labor market and the earnings of

natives in that labor market, immigration

may have been partly responsible for the

decline in the earnings of unskilled native

workers that occurred during the

1980s; the new immigration may have an

adverse fiscal impact because recent

waves participate in welfare programs

more intensively than earlier waves; immigration

policy matters, so that host

countries which filter applicants in terms

of observable skills “attract” immigrants

who are more skilled, have higher earnings,

and are less likely to participate in

public assistance programs; and, finally,

there exists a strong correlation between

the skills of immigrants and the skills of

second-generation Americans, so that

the huge skill differentials observed

among today’s foreign-born groups become

tomorrow’s differences among

American-born ethnic groups.

An important lesson of the recent research

is that immigration has a farreaching

and long-lasting impact. In a

sense, we are only beginning to observe

the economic consequences of the historic

changes in the size, national origin

mix, and skill composition of immigrants

admitted to the United States during the

past three decades."

Come back when you learn to read what you're posting.

[guyser]

Lol...you obviously don't read the sites you post. The first one you're relying on is 1995, and has to do with the US immigration stats at that time...no where else. Further, it doesn't say what you're hoping it says.

The second one you post is also from the early 90s, and concludes exactly the opposite of what you're hoping it does:

Come back when you learn to read what you're posting.

I really dont know why you are laughing. Perhaps a defense mechanism . I dont know. I put in my post that they were US based .

I knew that the first one was dated. But frankly , it seems not a whole lot has changed, although it has and I dont refute that.

As for your "it doesn't say what you're hoping it says.", umm, I never did say on this post so that is merely wishful conjecture on your part so.....now what?

However that said, the first link suggest this......

Economic section

"Within three to five years after entry, immigrant family

earnings reached and surpassed earnings of the average native

family (as of 1976); this catch-up is due largely to the youthful

non- retired age composition of immigrant families. The average

native family paid $3,008 in taxes in 1975. In comparison,

immigrant families in the United States 10 years paid $3,369,

those here 11-15 years paid $3,564, and those here 16-25 years

paid $3,592. All the cohorts' payments substantially surpassed

natives' payments.

Akbari found the same pattern in Canada for 1980. Immigrants

who arrived in Canada between 1946 and 1976 contributed

substantially more in taxes than did natives (1989, Table 4). And

though the results vary somewhat, Akbari's data for 1990 also

show much the same pattern (1994, Table 5).

These data, ranging over 15 years and two countries,

corroborate each other that immigrant families tend to pay more

taxes than do natives in most relevant cohorts.

And further in that section it gets worse for the native with respect to the less tax they paid.

Granted I believe this has changed, a downward trend in recent years if you will. But the point is still valid. Not a drain like some believe.

One can also see that investment in property , and the subsequent rise in same, has no doubt benefitted by the immigrant. That would include me, and you ,should you own a house.

Of course I find it highly significant for you to have shorted your quote since the first part of the Conclusion is highly praising of the immigrant, which is not your want in life.

In the interest of fairness , I will include that which you omitted on purpose.

Within a

decade or two after arrival, immigrant

earnings would approach, reach parity

with, and overtake the earnings of natives

of comparable socioeconomic background.

Moreover, there was little evidence

to suggest that immigrants had an

adverse impact on native employment

opportunities.

and long-lasting impact. In a

sense, we are only beginning to observe

the economic consequences of the historic

changes in the size, national origin

mix, and skill composition of immigrants

admitted to the United States during the

past three decades. The Second Great

Migration surely will alter the skill endowment

Lets be honest scotsa. Data has been continually posted with respect to immigration and its benefits and its drawbacks by most posters, save for one.

You never post numbers or data, you dont think you have benefitted by the immigrant being in Canada . Why is that?

If you own a home , live in a city, had work done on your house or eaten at a restaurant then you have in fact benefitted.

[ScottSA]

You never post numbers or data, you dont think you have benefitted by the immigrant being in Canada . Why is that?

If you own a home , live in a city, had work done on your house or eaten at a restaurant then you have in fact benefitted.

I don't post numbers partly because I've taken a statistics class or two, and know all too well how pointless it is mustering numbers to back an argument. Anyone can construct an argument using statistics for either side of any argument.

But mostly I don't use numbers because my problem with immigration has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with unquantifiable cultural and racial issues. I couldn't care less if every immigrant brought Frankincense, Myrrh, and bulging bags of Rolex wristwatches; in the long run they are not good for our society or culture. The fact that they may or may not be economically beneficial in the short term, and that is very debateable, is irrelevant to me. Unlike many, I don't hide behind euphemisms and side arguments in a silly argument to appear bovinely "tolerant."

[guyser]

I don't post numbers partly because I've taken a statistics class or two, and know all too well how pointless it is mustering numbers to back an argument. Anyone can construct an argument using statistics for either side of any argument.

I skipped the stats class. But your point is not lost.

But what other measuring stick is there if not the numbers?

Has crime gone up with the mass immigration to this country? No not really, and if anything crime has gone down.

Are the welfare rolls full of immigrants since our borders are open? Again not really , and if anything it is the home grown who largely abuses the social programmes.

Are there jobs begging to be filled in parts of this country? Yes there are, and no one to fill them, even when we bring in 240,000 people a year.

Do economists and employers agree that if we did not have the numbers coming in that Canada would be very different with a significantly weaker economy bordering on stagnant? Yes they do, in general.

But mostly I don't use numbers because my problem with immigration has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with unquantifiable cultural and racial issues. The fact that they may or may not be economically beneficial in the short term, and that is very debateable, is irrelevant to me. Unlike many, I don't hide behind euphemisms and side arguments in a silly argument to appear bovinely "tolerant."

Unquantifiable cultural and racial issues? I have yet to see a coherent arguement from anyone as to the problems of culture and race. This is a country that in all respects is a white run white based country. The people of power are natural born canadians. In other words, this country is run the same as it has always been run.

Marginalizing the immigrant to protect that which we historically have and continue to have is not the answer.

Our culture is evolving, we simply cannot have a static culture . It evolves and changes.The native born leaders are not in any danger of dieing out. Moederating from our historic norm will change but in increments so small, our great grandchildren will say "same as always."

The culture in the US and by extension Canada, was dramatically changed in the sixties, and was fought by the establishment for years. I would doubt there are any that want the culture of the 50's to re-emerge anytime soon.

Canada has some racial issues I grant you. But not on any serious level that I am aware of. I live and work in a city that should by any measure be the stick that all other are measured by. But there is very little racial conflict in this city. What can one derive from that other than this city, with all its divergent interests, works and works well. (City council notwithstanding.)

You mention that the economics are debateable. Fair enough. But you have without doubt gained economically from the immigrant. If nothing else it fueled the housing market allowing you, and myself, to gain equity in our respective housing. If people who want to retire out of say Vancouver and want a slower pace, a smaller town and pick your town, you benefit by the influx of money and the benefits of the service needed to provide for them. Perhaps they wanted to move away from Van to escape the huge housing prices and congestion in Vancouver, and we both know that was directly fueled by the Hong Kong immigrant.

Edit to add: According to the TO Real Estate Board, every house sale generates $30,000 in services, and that is over and above any closing costs, lawyer fees etc. I imagine the same for Van, Cal, Winn, Mtl and the other larger cities.To my mind if we connect the dots, then the economic advantage is huge.

If we were to close our borders I have no doubt that things would sour rather quickly. We wont notice it for a while but then it will mushroom on us rapidly. Loss of goods, loss of services are two off the top. The US has done nothing to stem the tide of Mexicans flooding in. I can only surmise that is because it has fueled the economy , that up until now was chugging along quite nicely.I suspect the US may have waited too long to close the borders and they will see a minor exodus to balance out the economy.

What I dont understand is the gains that have been made in your favour is undermined by the position that you dont want them and really never did. So when I sell my house, I will happily bank the profit. I will bet you will too. But I will be honest about what fueled at least a large part of it.

Can you say the same?

Edited November 28, 2007 by guyser

[Oleg Bach]

I skipped the stats class. But your point is not lost.

But what other measuring stick is there if not the numbers?

Has crime gone up with the mass immigration to this country? No not really, and if anything crime has gone down.

Are the welfare rolls full of immigrants since our borders are open? Again not really , and if anything it is the home grown who largely abuses the social programmes.

Are there jobs begging to be filled in parts of this country? Yes there are, and no one to fill them, even when we bring in 240,000 people a year.

Do economists and employers agree that if we did not have the numbers coming in that Canada would be very different with a significantly weaker economy bordering on stagnant? Yes they do, in general.

Unquantifiable cultural and racial issues? I have yet to see a coherent arguement from anyone as to the problems of culture and race. This is a country that in all respects is a white run white based country. The people of power are natural born canadians. In other words, this country is run the same as it has always been run.

Marginalizing the immigrant to protect that which we historically have and continue to have is not the answer.

Our culture is evolving, we simply cannot have a static culture . It evolves and changes.The native born leaders are not in any danger of dieing out. Moederating from our historic norm will change but in increments so small, our great grandchildren will say "same as always."

The culture in the US and by extension Canada, was dramatically changed in the sixties, and was fought by the establishment for years. I would doubt there are any that want the culture of the 50's to re-emerge anytime soon.

Canada has some racial issues I grant you. But not on any serious level that I am aware of. I live and work in a city that should by any measure be the stick that all other are measured by. But there is very little racial conflict in this city. What can one derive from that other than this city, with all its divergent interests, works and works well. (City council notwithstanding.)

You mention that the economics are debateable. Fair enough. But you have without doubt gained economically from the immigrant. If nothing else it fueled the housing market allowing you, and myself, to gain equity in our respective housing. If people who want to retire out of say Vancouver and want a slower pace, a smaller town and pick your town, you benefit by the influx of money and the benefits of the service needed to provide for them. Perhaps they wanted to move away from Van to escape the huge housing prices and congestion in Vancouver, and we both know that was directly fueled by the Hong Kong immigrant.

Edit to add: According to the TO Real Estate Board, every house sale generates $30,000 in services, and that is over and above any closing costs, lawyer fees etc. I imagine the same for Van, Cal, Winn, Mtl and the other larger cities.To my mind if we connect the dots, then the economic advantage is huge.

If we were to close our borders I have no doubt that things would sour rather quickly. We wont notice it for a while but then it will mushroom on us rapidly. Loss of goods, loss of services are two off the top. The US has done nothing to stem the tide of Mexicans flooding in. I can only surmise that is because it has fueled the economy , that up until now was chugging along quite nicely.I suspect the US may have waited too long to close the borders and they will see a minor exodus to balance out the economy.

What I dont understand is the gains that have been made in your favour is undermined by the position that you dont want them and really never did. So when I sell my house, I will happily bank the profit. I will bet you will too. But I will be honest about what fueled at least a large part of it.

Can you say the same?

If they have come to kill us they should leave- what are we stupid?

[sharkman]

Yes and no.