Does integration happen?
Those of relatively pale-skinned heritage, Turks and Arabs, for instance, are more highly integrated, and self-identify as entirely English, whereas those of South Asian descent generally are less fully integrated.
One might think that. Humans have a tendency to be self-deceptive and biased.So if you think that Europeans settling Australia hundreds of years ago was illegal, wouldnt you think the arrival of contemporary immigrants (refugees/boat people) would be also be illegal?
Escher, I think you might be generalising a little. What you're saying is true of some immigrants (your family, evidently), but think about Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans, who even to this day self-identify in relation to the "old country", even though they themselves and their parents were born in the United States. I also think it's important not to overlook the factor of ethnicity, and, bluntly, skin tone and accent. Living in the UK, I naturally know many second- and third-generation British Muslims. Those of relatively pale-skinned heritage, Turks and Arabs, for instance, are more highly integrated, and self-identify as entirely English, whereas those of South Asian descent generally are less fully integrated. My point is just that there's a lot to this, and I think that to say that in the United States, immigrants assimilate culturally, but that this is not true of other countries, is to overlook the finer points of a nuanced phenomenon.
Wow, you know heaps about Australia.
Middleway does not speak for most of us.In this thread: A nation descended from criminals that no other country on earth wanted now has an issue with refugees.
One might think that. Humans have a tendency to be self-deceptive and biased.
Please tell me the nice sanitized version where you guys don't give Canada a run for it's money in how the indigenous population was treated by the ruling class of Australia and how in it's early years the British Empire didn't use Irish rebels along with the rest of the "convicts" to build railways and just basic slave labour. I just love to hear glossed over history 8)
That's not pretension, it's understanding how to use the English language effectively. For instance, doubling up on punctuation looks shit, as does omitting commas, and resorting to cheap personal shots based on writing style makes you look like an intellectually bankrupt twat being backed into a corner and lashing out because you can't argue like an adult. It's always amusing to see people who vehemently oppose immigration, and often make complaints about the poor English skills of the new arrivals, struggling with the language themselves.
I'm intrigued as to why it is so important for you to make sense of it; there are many more opinions for you to scrutinise. The underlying point I was trying to make is that Australians and humans in general have a tendency to be hypocritical, that is all. Is it really so hard for you to grasp that humans have a tendency to be self-deceptive and biased?Im only trying to make sense of this:
"The arguments used against allowing "boat people", "refugees", and "asylum seekers" to cross international borders are generally ad hominem fallacies.
How quickly Australians forget that the majority of them are descendants of Europeans that came here on boats, and that the argument for settling via the doctrine of terra nullius was itself fallacious. Europeans settled Australia illegally, from 1788 onwards. Therefore, the majority of the population of Australia (except indigenous Australians, perhaps) are "boat people" and/or descendants of "boat people.
Any arguments, for not allowing humans to cross the border, that remain, are not reasonable or logical in the strict senses of the terms. The premises that form the arguments are based on legal fiction. Therein lies the problem; resolving apparent contradictions that result from political ideology based on legal fiction."
For further reference, name-calling is the lowest form of argument. See Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. I can't hate on you for your view, I hope this assists you in your quest to provoke needless quarrels:One might think that?? You wrote that you pretentious git.
Prove it.No, Indigenous Australians did not have any law against the immigration of foreigners.