Comments on: The dog whistle that wasn’t http://andrewnorton.info/2007/08/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/ Observations from Carlton's Lone Classical Liberal Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:03:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Ivan Munro http://andrewnorton.info/2007/08/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8870 Ivan Munro Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:06:10 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/08/07/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8870 26David Rubie August 9th, 2007 13:33 (Note to self: More hyperbole, get promotion from leftie to leftist.) "Did we shoot and drown more Iraqi’s than migrated here? Just askin’" Good on you David but why bother with closed minds Cheers Ivan Munro 26David Rubie
August 9th, 2007 13:33
(Note to self: More hyperbole, get promotion from leftie to leftist.)

“Did we shoot and drown more Iraqi’s than migrated here? Just askin’”

Good on you David but why bother with closed minds
Cheers Ivan Munro

]]> By: jc http://andrewnorton.info/2007/08/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8858 jc Thu, 09 Aug 2007 05:54:12 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/08/07/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8858 I could have told you that ages ago, andrew, if you only asked. I could have told you that ages ago, andrew, if you only asked.

]]> By: David Rubie http://andrewnorton.info/2007/08/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8850 David Rubie Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:33:40 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/08/07/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8850 (Note to self: More hyperbole, get promotion from leftie to leftist.) Did we shoot and drown more Iraqi's than migrated here? Just askin'. (Note to self: More hyperbole, get promotion from leftie to leftist.)

Did we shoot and drown more Iraqi’s than migrated here? Just askin’.

]]> By: Andrew Norton http://andrewnorton.info/2007/08/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8857 Andrew Norton Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:46:32 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/08/07/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8857 I've thought of just ignoring David R and advising others to do the same, but he is such a standard issue leftie - only the propensity to hyperbole is missing - that I decided he serves a useful purpose in offering the views that many other people would hold and which other commenters would inevitably encounter elsewhere in the blogosphere and the 'real world'. I’ve thought of just ignoring David R and advising others to do the same, but he is such a standard issue leftie - only the propensity to hyperbole is missing - that I decided he serves a useful purpose in offering the views that many other people would hold and which other commenters would inevitably encounter elsewhere in the blogosphere and the ‘real world’.

]]> By: David Rubie http://andrewnorton.info/2007/08/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8866 David Rubie Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:33:03 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/08/07/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8866 Stephen LLoyd wrote: <blockquote>David, why come here if you don’t agree with the theories put forward on this site?</blockquote> Sport. Stephen LLoyd wrote:

David, why come here if you don’t agree with the theories put forward on this site?

Sport.

]]> By: Bruce http://andrewnorton.info/2007/08/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8852 Bruce Wed, 08 Aug 2007 07:47:17 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/08/07/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8852 Andrew - Paul Kelly acknowledges that the discretion of the executive is so wide that "guilt or guilty knowledge [is] not essential", but then seems to shrug his shoulders at the implications of this. . I am not against a system that demands high standards of behavior for non-citizens, but I cannot understand the value of a system that has no clear, consistent standards and which does not allow the person being punished to see the evidence against them or to dispute the charges. Andrew - Paul Kelly acknowledges that the discretion of the executive is so wide that “guilt or guilty knowledge [is] not essential”, but then seems to shrug his shoulders at the implications of this.
.
I am not against a system that demands high standards of behavior for non-citizens, but I cannot understand the value of a system that has no clear, consistent standards and which does not allow the person being punished to see the evidence against them or to dispute the charges.

]]> By: Stephen Lloyd http://andrewnorton.info/2007/08/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8869 Stephen Lloyd Wed, 08 Aug 2007 07:05:36 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/08/07/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8869 David, why come here if you don't agree with the theories put forward on this site? You aren't going to convert us, or the large proportion of people who read Andrew's blog for the ideas he espouses, so why post here? Go to Larvatus Prodeo, I think you'll find they're more to your liking. It'd obvious you either don't understand the point Andrew is making, or don't want to understand. Your analysis of the application of the term 'to prejudge' is also flawed, as predjudice is to judge someone before you have gotten to know them, they do not need to have arrived already before you can learn all the facts relevant to whether they have skills to contribute to our economy. Therefore such a policy is not prejudiced. Their location at the time of having their skill set judged is irrelevant. You don't even understand your own analogy, as they judged Haneefs skill set before he came, because he was possessed of a medical degree before he came, and we are short of doctors. He did not need to come here and contribute before they judged him on his skill set. If we are short of engineers, they let people with engineering qualifications in. David, why come here if you don’t agree with the theories put forward on this site? You aren’t going to convert us, or the large proportion of people who read Andrew’s blog for the ideas he espouses, so why post here? Go to Larvatus Prodeo, I think you’ll find they’re more to your liking. It’d obvious you either don’t understand the point Andrew is making, or don’t want to understand.

Your analysis of the application of the term ‘to prejudge’ is also flawed, as predjudice is to judge someone before you have gotten to know them, they do not need to have arrived already before you can learn all the facts relevant to whether they have skills to contribute to our economy. Therefore such a policy is not prejudiced. Their location at the time of having their skill set judged is irrelevant.

You don’t even understand your own analogy, as they judged Haneefs skill set before he came, because he was possessed of a medical degree before he came, and we are short of doctors. He did not need to come here and contribute before they judged him on his skill set. If we are short of engineers, they let people with engineering qualifications in.

]]> By: David Rubie http://andrewnorton.info/2007/08/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8877 David Rubie Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:12:33 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/08/07/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8877 From the online etymology dictionary <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prejudice" rel="nofollow">Prejudice aka to pre-judge</a> Compare that with the change to the immigration policy you agree with: “economic contribution” - something you can't judge *after* someone has migrated here, only before. It's the very definition of prejudice. How are we to know how someone is going to contribute to society before they do it? After all, someone like Haneef is a doctor - surely a great candidate for permanent migration here, let alone a working visa. Instead of getting huffy about being called prejudiced, I suggest you embrace it to avoid the cognitive dissonance. From the online etymology dictionary Prejudice aka to pre-judge

Compare that with the change to the immigration policy you agree with: “economic contribution” - something you can’t judge *after* someone has migrated here, only before.

It’s the very definition of prejudice. How are we to know how someone is going to contribute to society before they do it? After all, someone like Haneef is a doctor - surely a great candidate for permanent migration here, let alone a working visa. Instead of getting huffy about being called prejudiced, I suggest you embrace it to avoid the cognitive dissonance.

]]> By: Andrew Norton http://andrewnorton.info/2007/08/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8871 Andrew Norton Wed, 08 Aug 2007 05:42:08 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/08/07/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8871 FS - The Department does commission research on the costs and benefits of migration, eg <a href="http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/social-costs-benefits/index.htm" rel="nofollow">this recent report</a>. But you could argue that we've had 60 years of 'education' with little real change in basic public opinion, which thinks migrants should fit in. The public has radically revised its views on *who* will fit in, but not on the underlying conditions of entry. That people like David Rubie abuse anyone who disagrees with them as prejudiced or racist doesn't help of course. FS - The Department does commission research on the costs and benefits of migration, eg this recent report. But you could argue that we’ve had 60 years of ‘education’ with little real change in basic public opinion, which thinks migrants should fit in. The public has radically revised its views on *who* will fit in, but not on the underlying conditions of entry.

That people like David Rubie abuse anyone who disagrees with them as prejudiced or racist doesn’t help of course.

]]> By: Andrew Norton http://andrewnorton.info/2007/08/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8860 Andrew Norton Wed, 08 Aug 2007 05:32:41 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/08/07/the-dog-whistle-that-wasnt/#comment-8860 Bruce - I thought Paul Kelly had the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22185125-28737,00.html?from=public_rss" rel="nofollow">best analysis</a> I had seen of this issue. David - 7606 to 12961. If you read my posts, rather skimming for the keywords that set off your automatic responses, you would realise that many of them (including this one) are analysis rather than advocacy. Like most classical liberals, I find migration a tough issue. People like Johan Norberg call for a free flow of people as well as ideas and goods. But others argue that in a welfare state migrants acquire rights to the income of people who are here already, leading to the higher taxation that I oppose. Migrants with few skills are likely to become welfare-reliant. So on balance I favour a migration programme with rules favouring those with a low likelihood of welfare reliance. Bruce - I thought Paul Kelly had the best analysis I had seen of this issue.

David - 7606 to 12961. If you read my posts, rather skimming for the keywords that set off your automatic responses, you would realise that many of them (including this one) are analysis rather than advocacy.

Like most classical liberals, I find migration a tough issue. People like Johan Norberg call for a free flow of people as well as ideas and goods. But others argue that in a welfare state migrants acquire rights to the income of people who are here already, leading to the higher taxation that I oppose. Migrants with few skills are likely to become welfare-reliant. So on balance I favour a migration programme with rules favouring those with a low likelihood of welfare reliance.

]]>