So, why is your country the best in the world?

I never said it was.

Space, great weather, clean cheap real food, not a lot of violence, easy going, great economy, blah blah blah.

The country I live in belongs to Krishna. I am just a tenant.

No refugees allowed.

Wrong. I wish you'd get your facts striaght. Refugees ARE permitted here. People who illegally arrive, destroying their papers before they arrive, have criminal records in the countries they are from or who commit crimes here are deported. Legitimate refugees are permitted to stay. Tell me, does the Netherlands allow EVERY person who arrives in your country to remain no matter where they are from or who they are? I think not. Don't believe everything you read on your anti-war socialist websites.

I notice you didn't say anything about your country. How about 'child porn central'?

It's not. Not by a long shot.

It's Canada, that's why.

I don't know that it is. It's the only country I've ever been in, so I can't really compare it.

It's not.

Because it has me!

It's not. It's just the strongest and one of the richest. It's a great country and I'm quite fond of it, although less so at the moment. One of the best things about my country is that we have lots of freedoms, but certain people are trying to take them away.

No, that's Belgium, dude. I wish you get your facts straight.
We are Euthanasia, Abortion and Cannabis Central.

The Netherlands are VERY strict when it comes to refugees, but I'm not proud of it like you.

And don't forget the blue lights in the washrooms of the clubs, so you're unable to see your veins...

It isn't. Whatever gave you that idea?

Because it just is... Everyone knows that. Just kidding

It isn't

I like your country best!

I was just looking for some sort of statistics, and I found what I was looking for: "Eight Times out of the last ten years, Canada has been ranked number one by the United Nations Human Development Index as the best country in the world to live." On the same page (I'm a little fuzzy on the source but it sounds authoritative) they have a whole bunch of other "facts" about Canada that make it sound pretty good. Some of these "facts" sound a little dubious to me. The page appears to be some kind of propaganda to encourage immigration. Decide for yourself:

http://www.ontrax.net/canada/why_canada_l.htm

Okay, if you go to http://www.ontrax.net/ it looks like some sort of company that does Immigration consulting, based in India. They have similar pages for other countries.

they forgot "Zang lives there"

hmmm, who said that??
but seriously, i think we have an amazing amount of freedom in the US and great opportunities to make a wonderful life.

Is not.

And these big blowers so you cannot use cocaine in the washrooms.

Wanna come live with me?

WORLD CHAMPIONS 2003 !

You have to be realistic. Would you like your border open to anyone who wants to come and who claims they are refugees? How would you feel if say 20 million "refugees" arrived in The Netherlands, all demanding housing food and jobs? Where will you draw the line? At 200,000 per year like us? At 500,000? Sooner or later you have to refuse entry to some. And yes I am proud of our system. It has successfully weeded out people we do not want here. One was a member of Saddam's Republican Guard. Many others claim they are political refugees from Iraq, yet after being checked they are liars from Pakistan who are wealthy enough to pay for first class tickets to Indonesia where they board fishing boats so they look like legitimate refugees. They are rich people who want to immigrate, not refugees. We have a set number of refugee places per year. When these people jump the line they take up spaces needed by REAL refugees who are too poor to get here by first class flight and who are still waiting in their home countries. Australia deports illegal non-refugees so we are more able to cope with real refugees. I AM proud of that.

We had the sense to see that our American "colonies" were never going to be very wothwhile or get anywhere, so we let them go....

It isn't. My country sucks.

I like the freedom's America provides. They have their cost, but so far I have found the cost is reasonable.

Don't know that it is, and never said it was.

Ooh, I didn't know about those.

Australia is hardly over-run by refugees. Here's some recent statistics on the number of refugees per 1000 population:

Armenia 70
Congo 40
Yugoslavia 38
Djibouti 37
Zambia 27
.........
Netherlands 9.2
Canada 4.1
Australia 3
UK 2.9
Finland 2.6
US 1.8
New Zealand 1.3
Italy .4

If anyone around here has a right to suggest that their country is over-run by refugees, (and I'm not suggesting that is the case) Maarten would have a better argument.

The statistics are from this site:

http://www.rmit.edu.au/GLOBALISM

(look under documents/publications)

best millitary, best economy, mostly the economy thing.

I never found that show funny. And especially that joke that always put on the TV, about not having snow tires and putting the chains around your feet.

SCTV? I thought it was hilarious! One of my all time favourite shows. I particularly liked Joe Flaherty; Count Floyd, Sammy Maudlin...I could never figure out why his career took such a nose dive. The only thing I've seen him in since, that was any good, was The Wrong Guy...apart from some cameos in stuff like Happy Gilmore and Back To The Future II...

<-----<-

Again, legitimate refugees are allowed to stay, illegals that are found to not be refugees are deported. Isn't that reasonable? I can't just up and decide to move to the US or Canada, why the hell should Australia be forced to take people who have no right to be here?

I'm getting a little tired of how Australia is made out to be the baddy because we deport people who prove to not be refugees. According to your figures, we take more per head than the US. There's plenty of Americans here, maybe you and Maarten could argue with them about why the US should be obligated to take more refugees.

Another thing, why is it somehow shameful if you are a predominantly white country that doesn't open your borders until the reason why your country was so attractive as a settlement country is destroyed? Why is Japan exempt from taking any refugees even though it's population density is less than Holland, and it's a wealthy first world country? It seems very racist to me. Either Japan (and maybe Sth Korea) have been made exempt because their culture is more worthy of protection than any European derived culture, or those who decide where refugees are placed don't think Asians are very good hosts.

Another thing, have you asked your indigenous people how many more immigrants they want?

I was just trying to make the point that although Australia doesn't have nearly the "refugee problem" that other nations do, you seem to like to make it out to be a big issue. If Australia is made out to be "the baddy", it is probably because of the rather widely publicised "boncentration bamps" that seem to be reserved for non-white illegal aliens, rather than anything to do with deportation.

Not all of them, but I talked to one that wasn't keen on the idea...

Okay, you win!

Whew. I was getting tired of looking for those.

Me too! That's why I conceded. Besides, how could I top Rush?

Like this:

Maartin started this.

Anyway, refugees from neighbouring countries don't carry as many costs and problems as immigrants and refugees from places with different cultures and languages. Congoese, Yugoslavian and Armenian refugees aren't going to be from Vietnam and usually speak the same language etc. Australia could absorb all 4 million New Zealanders in one year without too many problems, but refugees from the Middle East have very different cultures, attitudes to women, language etc.

The reason people are detained in those centers is because they arrive here with no papers. They are told to destroy their papers once they get on the boat. I'm not sure how many immigrants with no identification Canada lets roam the country, but here we detain them no matter what their race. The thing about immigrants from Europe is that they tend to arrive here via airplane and have passports at the airport. Immigration knows who they are and how long they intend to stay unlike those "non-white" boat people who could be anyone. There's also the fact that most overstayers from 'white' countries eventually leave once they are aware their visa has expired. It happens that people wanting to settle here come from crap countries that are usually non-white. That doesn't mean they are refugees simply because their country sucks.

Those widely publicised detention centres have attention drawn to them by leftist "demonstrators" who, if you read any extreme left policy, want all borders worldwide to be removed. Can you imagine Vancouver with about 1 million shanty dwellers surrounding it?

I'm curious. Do you lock your doors or do you think because you have a nice place to live and food in your fridge that you somehow are obligated to allow anyone who wants to sleep in your house or eat your food in whenever they want? Do you think you have the right to say who should or shouldn't enter your home?

You forgot your question mark!

Because our favourtie past-time is running down and doging about the country. You can't do that in lot of countries for fear of being branded a communist or other dissadent.

You know, I had to sneak a look at the URL to find out who that was! I didn't recognise him without the acne scars!

Maybe he's put on a little weight too, I haven't seen any recent pictures of him.

BTW, I'm not bad-mouthing Bryan Adams. He's a good guy, very generous with charities and such...

I could probably hit his office with a Frisbee thrown from my window...

I don't think he tops Rush though. He may have been a much bigger pop-star, but Rush has a very large and VERY devoted following. They have for years. At least amongst young Canadian males...Absolutely rabid fans...lots of them...

Well, I just guess it's not my generation. Only Canadian comedy I watch is the Red Green show.

The refugees are not Congolese, Yugoslavian or Armenian. Those are the countries which are receiving them. The refugees are probably coming over the border from an adjacent country en mass, speaking a different language and having a different culture. I doubt if those countries are gleefully welcoming them, but more likely just don't have the infrastructure to do anything to stop it. The point was that if someone has a right to complain about refugees it would be an Armenian with 7% of their total population made up of them. Australia, with .3%, really isn't in that position. I don't hear Maarten complaining about refugees, and his country has THREE times as many! And in a much smaller country with a much greater population density. The Dutch culture is probably a lot more insular too, considering that it is European as opposed to a colonial nation...

We have the same sort of thing happen in Canada that you describe. Illegals arrive without papers, attempt to sneak in etc.. The media tries to enflame public opinion over this, but I don't know anyone that really gets their knickers in a knot over it. From what I understand, they are first put in regular jails, maybe for a few weeks, then they try to find places for them to live while they wait for the courts to decide what to do with them on an individual basis. They are watched pretty closely. In a lot of cases, I think they let them stay. I'm not really sure. I know a couple of people who work for Immigration Canada, I guess I could ask...My impression is that Canada is pretty easy going about this, in the scheme of things...

"Vancouver with about 1 million shanty dwellers surrounding it"?

Doesn't sound that much different from some of the far flung suburbs...trailer parks, ratty old bungalows, massive social housing projects...Yup! That sounds like some of our suburbs!

Yes I lock my doors. My insurance wouldn't be much good if I couldn't show evidence of forced entry. Yeah, I like to pick and choose who enters my home. I would welcome anyone to enter my country though; that is a choice I don't have. I don't have a major complaint about how the Canadian government handles this. I think they are pretty generous and open. They could be more so, but I wouldn't encourage them to be less so.

I was teasing... I've met Bryan Adams. He is cool.

I'm sure he's very nice. I've never met him, but that has been my impression. I was working for a social service agency not too long ago, and Bryan Adams donated a humongous pile of new clothes for us to give away. I gave out quite a few of them myself.

It's not - but we still have free medical and some good laws - also liquor is still mostly only sold in government stores, we have tougher laws on pharmaceutical sales than the States and we still have some wilderness left.

FREEDOM

Cool. He gave me a Coke!

It isn't. Apart from Manchester United is in it.

I'm not complaining about refugees. I sometimes complain about illegals. There's a difference.

The people detained are free to leave Australia any time they like. They are detained because they have destroyed their ID. LEgitimate refugees who have papers and are found to be legitimate are allowed to stay, as well as many more who are so poor they can't afford to get here by themselves so our government brings them here. The only people I see getting their knickers in a knot over this are the foreign press, and domestic extreme left wingers who seem to be able to exist without working as they camp outside the detention centres. Most Australians understand the system is fair.

Tell me, if the Canadian quality of life was adversely affected buy a particular group of immigrants, would you prefer that Canada find immigrants from other places or would you be uncomfortable with that? Also, do you think Canada should hold say 100 million people? What i want to know is where would you draw the line and say "no, this country is no longer benefiting from this, in fact life for the existing residents is losing it's quality. I believe we should put a stop to immigration". If you do have an upper limit in mind, say 50 million, would you be considered to be a xenophobe by someone who believes Canada could go as high as 100 million?

like duh... everyone knows AUSTRALIA kicks ass!!!!

YES! If I get to cuddle the baby and bathe her and help feed her and kiss her and cuddle her and cuddle her some more?

Of course! But, you will have to cuddle her some more!

Great bit of debating there kaleb. The left-wing, tree-hugging, earth-loving, wishy-washy, namby-pamby, hoity-toity, oops where's my handbag, lar-de-dar-de, lar-de-darshuman-rights-for-everyone, lets-stuff-this small-island-with-as-many-people-as-possible liberals really annoy me at times.

I'm sure he could tell that you could afford your own clothes!

If the Canadian quality of life was adversely affected by a particular group of immigrants, would I prefer that Canada find immigrants from other places? I don't know. I'm kind of having trouble wrapping my head around that. It seems unlikely that I would have access to any reliable information about something like that. Most of that sort of thing is all about perceptions. Maybe you read something in the paper, or you get some idea from an isolated situation. I'm not aware of any reliable studies being done on such things. I can't imagine that anyone would want to fund such studies. Hypothetically, I honestly don't know what I would think. I would probably want to look deeper for some kind of explanation.

Canada with 100 million people? Well, right now we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30 million, the vast majority of which are concentrated in a very narrow strip of land between Detroit and the mouth of the St. Lawrence river (something like 3 out of 4 Canadians). Something like 90% live within 100 km. of the US border. Apparently there is already some sort of program in place to encourage immigrants to live outside of the major cities. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I know it isn't coercive or anything. I know you get a tax break if you live in "the North", although I'm not sure exactly what the definition is. Anyway, my point was going to be that as long as those extra 70 million people didn't arrive on the same day in Toronto or something, it would probably be fine. If we added that many people, and they arrived gradually over 15-20 years, and they turned small northern towns into larger cities, rather than inundating the existing large cities, I don't think it would be a problem at all. It would probably be an enormous benefit. Canada is a much larger country than the United States. They have over 200 million people. We could easily have 100 million.

YAY!!!!

Wow! I think you described them pretty well!

The problem with immigration, especially to countries like ours that have large cities and not much in between is that people tend to gravitate to the cities. Australia has about 200,000 immigrants per year plus those who come in through New Zealand who don't need visas. These include New Zealanders and Pacific islanders that are from New Zealand territories. It's about 1 million every 4 years anyway total, and Australia is only 20 million. Of these, Sydney gets about half. Sydney western suburbs are 100km from the CBD. The city is running out of water. They are on water restrictions because it can't rain fast enough to keep the reservoirs full. The NSW state government wanted to make it a condition of immigration that people live somewhere other than Sydney or Melbourne which is having the same problems but the civil libertarians said that was discriminatory and tokk away freedom of movement. Fair enough. Australia doesn't have the water to support a huge population. Our longest river, the Murray, is dry at its mouth because of irrigation and urban water demands from Melbourne and Adelaide. People see Australia and Canada as vast empty spaces waiting to be filled by the world's poor, but unless we get a lot of desert dwellers we aren't going to be able to support them. Sure there's desalination, or using less water. I believe Australia is 3rd after the US and Canada for water usage, yet we have the second driest continent. Likewise much of Canada is useless as far as farming goes. The extra 70 million people would end up in the bigest cities rather than the north.

We could do it if we were pushed, but there has to be an incentive, and the money to do it with. There's also the fact that the land that recieves the most rain and regularly, is right up north in the wet tropics away from all the infrastructure and cities. Much of it is also protected national parks. There's a lot of issues involved. It isn't always as simple as opening the borders and come what may.

I think the tax incentive approach might be the best way for the government to discourage everyone concentrating into the big cities. I wouldn't normally approve of such things, but under those kind of circumstances it would probably work.

Canada has a pretty good water supply. Infact, the US gets a lot of their water from us. The only water restrictions around here are for watering lawns. Otherwise those suburban retards would put their sprinklers out in June and leave them going until September!

I know everyone tends to think of Canada as a vast expanse of frozen tundra...which it is for the most part, but really only in the very far north. I think we have plenty of land that could be used for agriculture that isn't right now. Most of the three prairie provinces are superb agricultural land. Around here, a lot of the good farming land has been overrun by the suburbs. The whole area where greater Vancouver is, used to be all farms. I grew up in one of the suburbs. It was farm land before I was born, and there were still some small farms when I was a kid. The suburbs have been spreading out and eating up all of that. I've seen this going on all my life. What was once huge expanses of farm land is now nothing but suburban sprawl.

I don't think there is one country in the world that could be referred to as 'the best'.

There's a suburb of Brisbane about 3 minutes drive from the central city called New Farm. I think the last farm there was some time in the early 19th century. Australia has a big problem with salination of soils as well. Even if we had the water (there's been talk of diverting rivers inland) irrigation just ends up bringing dissolved salts to the surface where they stay after the water evaporates. The Great Dividing Range runs north/south up the east coast. rain that falls east of that runs to the coast so dissolved salts get flushed to sea. Rain that falls west of the range runs inland, towards Lake Eyre (if it makes it). Lake Eyre is usually dry, but when it rarely fills, it's far saltier than the sea. Since Lake Eyre is a long way below sea level no water drains to the coast and all the salts stay inland. The lake should be an inland sea if the sun and heat weren't so extreme. The South west around Perth has the same problem once you leave the coast. The red center is pretty much useless as far as people go. If anyone in a position of planning for the future wants to be realistic they should discount most of Australia. Only the east coast east of the range, the far sw corner and a narrow strip across the top end is useful. Irrigating the center would only produce salt flats. It's a very, very old country that has poor soils and floods or droughts.

Yeah, I did think of most of Canada as a frozen wasteland, but you're talking to a gardener that sees my native garden suffer after a freak midwinter night of -2C. I can't imagine how anyone can grow much in Canada!

It sounds to me like the parts of Australia that are presently inhabited are probably the only parts that are really suitable.

I'm looking at one of my atlases. It shows the "mean annual length of growing season". Canada's primary agricultural areas are in the range that exceeds 140 days. Basically, it's about 40% of the country, south and west. Pretty much all of the western provinces...

That is a lot of space.

Because I live in it!

Oh, ok, maybe that's not the real reason...

Who said it was?

It's good to be in the only remaining super-power, baby!

Russia?

Let me re-phrase... It's good to have Tony Blair as our beotch!

A nice manicured neighborhood with strict covenants can sit back to back against a neighborhood where people can put up all kinds of lawn ornaments, spinning whirlygigs and wind chimes everywhere. Hooray for diversity!

Because it is The United States if America!!
Enough said.