SA Footy

Magellan wrote:

Executive Member wrote:I thought Nz'ers spent 6 months on a leaky boat to get here

Not anymore, History Never Repeats. I Got You there.

I'll bet you tell yourself that before you go to sleep.

This pack of asses couldn't lie straight in bed. I expect nothing less from them.

Q. wrote:LNP caught lying again - this time about impact of abolishing negative gearing

The effect of Paul Keating's experiment with scrapping negative gearing and later restoring it has been reported in various ways with those differing in perspective interpreting the subsequent trends in different ways. One thing is clear - that the effect in Sydney and Melbourne was not the same as in smaller cities, but the media and statisticians seem to focus on the big city results.

In Adelaide property values slumped below late 1970s levels until May 1984, then boomed until the 1987-88 slump which dragged on through the mid-1990s. I don't know whether this was related or an independent Adelaide phenomenon.

But the question is: "Why did Paul Keating restore negative gearing if he thought getting rid of it was a good idea at first?"

Psyber wrote:But the question is: "Why did Paul Keating restore negative gearing if he thought getting rid of it was a good idea at first?"

The 1988 NSW election

Jimmy_041 wrote:

morell wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Interestingly, according to something I read yesterday, more New Zealanders commit crimes in Victoria than Sudanese.
I meant migrants that do illegal shit or consume services and cost the tax payer.

Illegal immigration was the wrong term to use.

So what's that got to do with: "But you know, they're white and come in a plane, so it's all good, cuzzy bro."

Failed attempted recovery bro

Urgh, god you're a bore.

It's ok to the rank and file that kiwis come here, commit crimes, use up taxes and what not, to the point that they are the biggest burden to said taxpayer in terms of migrant communities. Yet we don't have politicians bemoaning the waves of kiwi gangs or wearing traditional maori clothes nor do we have vitriol directed at them en masse by Reclaim Australia types because ... they come here by plane and look ok. That was my point.

If my incorrect using of "illegal immigrants" instead of "immigrants that do illegal shit" bars you up, then half your luck, bro. I could argue that if a kiwi does something illegal they have violated the terms of their Special Category visa (subclass 444) and are therefore, illegal migrants and require deportation, but that would be me being a pedant. and no one likes a pedant.

morell wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

morell wrote:

Dogwatcher wrote:Interestingly, according to something I read yesterday, more New Zealanders commit crimes in Victoria than Sudanese.
I meant migrants that do illegal shit or consume services and cost the tax payer.

Illegal immigration was the wrong term to use.

So what's that got to do with: "But you know, they're white and come in a plane, so it's all good, cuzzy bro."

Failed attempted recovery bro

Urgh, god you're a bore.

It's ok to the rank and file that kiwis come here, commit crimes, use up taxes and what not, to the point that they are the biggest burden to said taxpayer in terms of migrant communities. Yet we don't have politicians bemoaning the waves of kiwi gangs or wearing traditional maori clothes nor do we have vitriol directed at them en masse by Reclaim Australia types because ... they come here by plane and look ok. That was my point.

If my incorrect using of "illegal immigrants" instead of "immigrants that do illegal shit" bars you up, then half your luck, bro. I could argue that if a kiwi does something illegal they have violated the terms of their Special Category visa (subclass 444) and are therefore, illegal migrants and require deportation, but that would be me being a pedant. and no one likes a pedant.

Sorry, must be my poor interpretive skills

So:
"illegal immigrants" now means"immigrants that do illegal shit"
"white" now includes Maori

Consequently "come in a plane" can't be referring to illegal immigrants flying in instead of coming by boat. How does that fit into this interpretation of yours?

There's no such thing as a 'illegal immigrant' in Australia

Jimmy_041 wrote:Sorry, must be my poor interpretive skills

So:
"illegal immigrants" now means"immigrants that do illegal shit"
"white" now includes Maori

Consequently "come in a plane" can't be referring to illegal immigrants flying in instead of coming by boat. How does that fit into this interpretation of yours?

How many times would you like me to admit I used the incorrect term?

As this makes three times. Will it take four? Five?

Despite this, the overarching point is valid:

We only care about non-white immigration

Nah, I don't buy it.

morell wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:Sorry, must be my poor interpretive skills

So:
"illegal immigrants" now means"immigrants that do illegal shit"
"white" now includes Maori

Consequently "come in a plane" can't be referring to illegal immigrants flying in instead of coming by boat. How does that fit into this interpretation of yours?

How many times would you like me to admit I used the incorrect term?

As this makes three times. Will it take four? Five?

Despite this, the overarching point is valid:

We only care about non-white immigration

I feel you need to say it at least 4 more times.

This circle just needs to keep on keeping on!

Jimmy_041 wrote:Nah, I don't buy it.

Fortunately, you don't have to, because the facts are:

At 30 November 2017, there were 1301 people in held immigration detention facilities. Of these 1301 people, 13.5 per cent were from New Zealand, 7.8 per cent were from Sri Lanka, 7.6 per cent were from Vietnam, 6.8 per cent were from Iran and 5.7 per cent were from China.



https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/Reportsa ... r-2017.pdf

Nah, I don’t buy you were referring to immigrants who commit crimes
Why would you qualify the original comment that they are white and fly in by plane?
What’s that got to do with criminals?
All you had to say was “oops, I forgot kiwis are allowed here”

Anyway, I have better things to do

Absolutely I was. The entire premise of my posts was to highlight that Kiwi’s make up the largest proportion of people who face immigration issues.

Illegal immigration, immigrants who are staying here illegally, migrants undertaking illegal things, criminal migrants, non-Australian migrants doing illegal things - however the **** you want to ******* coin it, the point remains the same….

Which is - “stop the boats” and “Sudanese gangs” that type of rhetoric is simply dog whistle politics, based on the fact most people aren’t actually that concerned about protecting borders, but rather protecting borders against people that don’t look, sound or act like them. If they were just concerned about protecting borders from a safety and economic perspective, they would be welcoming people by boat, banning flights from New Zealand and removing the subclass Visa instead of sticking “**** off we’re full” stickers on their commodores.

Morell, what are your thoughts on the nature and rates of crime from various immigrant groups?

I agree NZ are the largest group of immigrants doing illegal things, but they are also the largest group are they not?

The rate of crime (45 times the general population) and nature of the crimes that we see reported from the Sudanese Immigrants is a large cause for concern in my opinion.

cant remember where i read it, but if you control for socio-economic factors dont most of those crime rate figures disappear back into the noise?

i.e not much different to others that live in the same suburbs, earn similar income etc

As people grow into their community, it also reduces.

Remember the Asian crime fear of the early 90s?
Weren't true blue Aussies worried about crime in the 50s and 60s as Italian and Greek immigrants moved here?

yep, definitely used to be the fear of vietnamese gangs when i was younger.

Dogwatcher wrote:As people grow into their community, it also reduces.

Remember the Asian crime fear of the early 90s?
Weren't true blue Aussies worried about crime in the 50s and 60s as Italian and Greek immigrants moved here?

Is that because society was highly aware of it and vigilant to the fact, almost forcing them to tidy up their act?
I don't know, but I would suggest that if people are behaving badly, and society was pushing for that behavior to stop, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

bennymacca wrote:cant remember where i read it, but if you control for socio-economic factors dont most of those crime rate figures disappear back into the noise?

i.e not much different to others that live in the same suburbs, earn similar income etc

I think the picture is a lot more complicated than that, Depending on the category of offending, economic adversity can increase or suppress crime.

And obviously any talk of this would have to factor in individual level attitudes and values held by offenders which aren't held across the board.

Trader wrote:Morell, what are your thoughts on the nature and rates of crime from various immigrant groups?

I agree NZ are the largest group of immigrants doing illegal things, but they are also the largest group are they not?

The rate of crime (45 times the general population) and nature of the crimes that we see reported from the Sudanese Immigrants is a large cause for concern in my opinion.

It's not a factor of 45. Your 2011 population data compared to 2015 crime data is way out.