By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Go back to your own country.... oh, wait.
It used to be a fairly common phrase when someone keeps raving on about some place, someone will finally tell them the above...
And, obviously, Chinese do this with regards to many countries.
Perhaps we even heard it when talking about China...
However. what happens when the country you're in makes it illegal to go back there.
Or even for others to visit it.
The prime minister of Australia just made it illegal for people to travel to Syria or Iraq unless they have an 'official reason'... To me, that's a seriously gross violation of human rights. Especially in light of the above attitude... that is, we often say something isn't right in our country, so if people want to do something, then they need to go elsewhere... follow our laws, or leave...
Isn't this a way to force people to remain subject to the local laws?? (sort of like certain countries not allowing its people to get passports...)
Your thoughts?
8 years 43 weeks ago in Visa & Legalities - China
I know a Syrian guy who lives in China. I hope he never has to do a "home run" if he needs a new Z visa.
I also know a Lebanese guy who took his Chinese wife and kids home for a holiday last year. No problem there, because Lebanon is friend.
This is an interesting subject, because as we are all aware, Australia has had a "tow back" policy for migrant/ refugee boats. Wonder what happens if they get a boat load of Syrians and Iraqi refugees? Just a thought.
Anyway. Illegal to travel to certain countries... is it wrong? Yup of course. It is basically criminalizing people for what they might believe in without actually knowing what they believe.
Here is a UK guy who traveled to Syria and was killed in the fighting.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31922096
But he is a hero, because he was fighting for the good guys. The Kurds.
The whole thing seems strange to me. When the anti Assad stuff kicked off, western nations where hailing the anti Assad fighters as freedom fighters. They sent them weapons, they wanted to do air strikes, they had a big arguement with Putin because he said no... and so on so on.
The West was desperate to help the rebels defeat Assad.
But then... oh dear... erm, maybe these rebels are not the people we want to be in charge.. erm... um.... ah.. bomb them all. Yes, they are all baddies now... bomb them all.
In the meantime of course, our biggest enemy over there, Iran, are actually the people doing the most to defeat ISIS.
Wow.
This whole Australian thing is spin. Western powers are telling us that ISIS are anti west, that they want to kill all people, they want to launch terror attacks. Erm, well, yes. But at the moment they are actually involved in a sectarian war against another branch of their religion. Its Sunni V Shiite. ISIS is Sunni, Iran is Shia. But wait, Iran is our enemy, so anyone going to fight against ISIS must be a Shia, so they must support Iran.
Of course, maybe someone wanting to go to Syria is a Kurd. After all the Kurds are the good guys. Maybe yes, but we can't support the Kurds because our Nato friend Turkey would not like that.
It's a terrible state of affairs.
For developed nations to ban anyone from traveling there is just plain wrong.
Sorry for the rambling rant.
philbravery:
Good Rant by the way
there was a program on our local broadcaster explaining all the positions that countries are taking
Saudi v Iran = USA v Russia and so on and so on
there is a lot of different agenders out there and we only are told a little of the story
dokken:
Not all Syrian rebels are Isis supporters or condone Isis. It's just difficult to distinguish. I think now it's a situation like Iraq. At first it seems all important to remove the dictator. Then it becomes apparent that the theocracy that will replace the dictator will be even worse.
"Bomb them all" I disagree with what this implies. You make it sound like the west has been carpet bombing the region. In fact the west has done very little, just degrading Isis enough so they cannot overrun Baghdad. The west should be co ordinating with the Iraqis responding to their military needs.
ScotsAlan:
Yup Dokken. It's a mess. So many factions, nobody knows who is who any more.
When I see photos of the destruction, it would not surprise me if there was a brigade of Chinese building material salesmen in there too.
If only anyone could have predicted this happening.
Oh wait.... someone did:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dick+cheney+1991+dont+invade+iraq
I know a Syrian guy who lives in China. I hope he never has to do a "home run" if he needs a new Z visa.
I also know a Lebanese guy who took his Chinese wife and kids home for a holiday last year. No problem there, because Lebanon is friend.
This is an interesting subject, because as we are all aware, Australia has had a "tow back" policy for migrant/ refugee boats. Wonder what happens if they get a boat load of Syrians and Iraqi refugees? Just a thought.
Anyway. Illegal to travel to certain countries... is it wrong? Yup of course. It is basically criminalizing people for what they might believe in without actually knowing what they believe.
Here is a UK guy who traveled to Syria and was killed in the fighting.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31922096
But he is a hero, because he was fighting for the good guys. The Kurds.
The whole thing seems strange to me. When the anti Assad stuff kicked off, western nations where hailing the anti Assad fighters as freedom fighters. They sent them weapons, they wanted to do air strikes, they had a big arguement with Putin because he said no... and so on so on.
The West was desperate to help the rebels defeat Assad.
But then... oh dear... erm, maybe these rebels are not the people we want to be in charge.. erm... um.... ah.. bomb them all. Yes, they are all baddies now... bomb them all.
In the meantime of course, our biggest enemy over there, Iran, are actually the people doing the most to defeat ISIS.
Wow.
This whole Australian thing is spin. Western powers are telling us that ISIS are anti west, that they want to kill all people, they want to launch terror attacks. Erm, well, yes. But at the moment they are actually involved in a sectarian war against another branch of their religion. Its Sunni V Shiite. ISIS is Sunni, Iran is Shia. But wait, Iran is our enemy, so anyone going to fight against ISIS must be a Shia, so they must support Iran.
Of course, maybe someone wanting to go to Syria is a Kurd. After all the Kurds are the good guys. Maybe yes, but we can't support the Kurds because our Nato friend Turkey would not like that.
It's a terrible state of affairs.
For developed nations to ban anyone from traveling there is just plain wrong.
Sorry for the rambling rant.
philbravery:
Good Rant by the way
there was a program on our local broadcaster explaining all the positions that countries are taking
Saudi v Iran = USA v Russia and so on and so on
there is a lot of different agenders out there and we only are told a little of the story
dokken:
Not all Syrian rebels are Isis supporters or condone Isis. It's just difficult to distinguish. I think now it's a situation like Iraq. At first it seems all important to remove the dictator. Then it becomes apparent that the theocracy that will replace the dictator will be even worse.
"Bomb them all" I disagree with what this implies. You make it sound like the west has been carpet bombing the region. In fact the west has done very little, just degrading Isis enough so they cannot overrun Baghdad. The west should be co ordinating with the Iraqis responding to their military needs.
ScotsAlan:
Yup Dokken. It's a mess. So many factions, nobody knows who is who any more.
When I see photos of the destruction, it would not surprise me if there was a brigade of Chinese building material salesmen in there too.
If only anyone could have predicted this happening.
Oh wait.... someone did:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dick+cheney+1991+dont+invade+iraq
I say lt them go to Syria
then they are not allowed back as the will no longer be Australian citizens
I see today that Iranian backed fighters have put a bounty on the capture of Australian terrorist fighters .
I would be better if they took another option and made the problem go away
as for that religion from China
I do not know enough about it to comment on it
ScotsAlan:
Do you have a link about that bounty story?
I could see why Iran would want to do this. It would be a propaganda coup. But would they want to do that given the recent nuclear talks etc. After all, Iran is effectively fighting on "our side" now.
philbravery:
Links are not my thing but if you go to ninemsn.com.au you will find it Cheers Phil
I see nothing wrong with not allowing citizens back to their country of birth if they travel to a war zone to participate in murder, absolutely nothing wrong with it, good fucking riddance.
People always harp on about rights, our rights have been paid for in blood and i take them very very seriously, but they never mention responsibility. The main responsibility you have as an individual is to not murder anyone else. Thats the number one responsibility you have. Do not Murder people. also how is that a violation of human rights? You dont actually have the right to go anywhere you please.
Shining_brow:
A) what if it's not to their 'home country', but someone just wants to go and fight for the cause? There are those who have done so - but it always depends on which side that the local government will be concerned about. (ie, if you fight alongside us, it's ok. If not, it's illegal).
B) yes, we do have this 'right' to go where we like... but governments have taken it away, so that it seems like we don't.
ScotsAlan:
I get your thing about murder. What about the military? If country A sends soldiers to country B to kill people, should the soldiers be banned from their home country?
fada:
A) up to the relevant law makers in a democratic society to decide, i dont think the side would matter, no government want private citizens learning guerilla warfare and then returning home, regardles of whom they were fighting for. B) your deluding yourself if you think you have the right to enter my home, so no, you cant go wherever you please, this has been the case since the first city states were formed, quite a long long time ago.
fada:
@scots: tricky question, while state sanctioned murder is still murder society as a whole has deemed it acceptable. Of course this only applies to democratic countries.
Lord_hanson:
What I don't get is that if some tribe in the Amazon banished a member of their tribe no one would care but a country banishing someone is a gross violation of human rights? Somethings are common sense. If you go to a certain country to commit war crimes then don't come back. You are a monster and not welcome to return.
Shining_brow:
My B) was more in reference in moving through public space - ie, if governments have the 'right' to stop people from being allowed to leave a place, and go somewhere else (without other legal impediments - eg, you've been convicted of murder, you must stay in jail).
fada:
barring no previous convictions the govenment can still tell you piss off from certain areas. Example...bomb goes off on the street you are about to enter, you have never been accused of a crime let alone convicted of one, police come along and tell you this once public area is now closed and you can't enter. That to me seems perfectly reasonable, perfectly legal and perfectly right.
ScotsAlan:
It is perfectly reasonable fada. But they need to be empowered by an act of law for it to be legal. Not all instructions issued by Police are legal. Check out youtube for US soverign citizens... some of it is very funny... and interesting.
fada:
No doubt, iv seen those absolute abuses of power by stupid, pardon my french, c**ts. The case i described would be perfectly legal, at least in my place.
Non of this would matter if the west pulled its finger out and send troops there. The crimes ISIS are commiting are an afront to all humanity. They should not be treated as humans but rabid dogs, hunted down and killed. Apparently it is ok to invade a country for oil but not to stop human suffering.
Shining_brow:
While I'm not disagreeing with what ISIS does or should be done with them, do you think people from other countries (such as the US, UK, Aus, etc) make it illegal to leave their home country (UK, US, Aus, etc) to go there to fight for them? Basically, to make it a crime to want to fight in a war in some other place.
Or, for that matter, just to go to that country... Personally, I'd love to go to somewhere like Syria or Iraq... so much history there! (as long as ISIS doesn't destroy it all...). And I don't think my country has the right to tell me I'm not allowed to do so (or be imprisoned)!
fada:
Going to a warzone to fight has gone beyond the want stage and into the action stage. Conspiracy to commit a crime is still a crime. If i plan to murder you but im caught beforehand with only the want to kill and a new knife i purchased for the job while bragging to my mates about what i wanted to do, do you want me Locked up or out and about because i havnt actually commited murder yet? Your government has the right to tell you what to do, you gave it the right through your vote or through your apathy.
ScotsAlan:
Quote: "Your government has the right to tell you what to do, you gave it the right through your vote or through your apathy."
Not really. they are constrained by constitution, and any international agreements they have signed up to.
The UK Government, for example, do not actually have a written constitution, but they sill have to work under the law of the land. And to make a new law, they have to get it through both houses. And even then, it can be challanged through European or International law.
The UK Prime Minister wanted to do a similar "strip their nationality" thing, until it was pointed out it is illegal under international law to render a person stateless.
The Australian law will only apply to people with dual citizenship where the Australian citizenship was gained, not granted as a birthright.
There are loads of laws out there to protect us against our own Governments. So they can't tell us to do anything they want.
And a good thing too.
fada:
Constrained by a constituition most people have voted for or voted to change. You gave the govenment your permission to act on your behalf. So my original point of you gave the govenment prmission to tell you what to do still stands. At least in a republic or a democracy. Is this not the basic tenant of any society? Submitting to rule, through force or other. I should have been clearer in my original reply, the govenment does not have cart Blanche right to do whatever it wants, it does have huge powers to get you to do stuff though
ScotsAlan:
Yes. If it is passed into law, then it is law.
But new laws can still be challanged in court.
hi2u:
fada: the majority of voters in California voted for prop 8. Later it was rejected by a single judge. Not everything is decided by the people.
fada:
I realise not everything is decided by the people, that is why most places are republics and not true democracys, we elect leaders to decide for us. It is my understanding that judges are voted into office in the states, if this is true then yes, the people did decide. If that judge was not elected and had the power to wipe out a new law, then i would suggest you are not living in a republic, let alone a democracy.
Shining_brow:
@fada...
"Going to a warzone to fight has gone beyond the want stage and into the action stage. Conspiracy to commit a crime is still a crime".
However... a) - is it a crime in the country that they're doing it in? Does country A have the right to say you can't do X in country B? You may want to stop and think about this for a minute, before you open that huge can of worms, and consider: in the Netherlands, it's ok to do various drugs that are very illegal in most other countries. In many nations, it's ok to have many wives (if you're a man).. it's also ok to stone someone to death..The legal age of sexual consent is vastly different across the globe, as is the consumption (and age) of drinking alcohol.
B) - does it matter which side you're fighting on? As Scots was indicating above, it seems fine if you're ideology is supporting that of the Aussies (in this example), but you're an evil bastard if not. And, this is essentially a religious war, and a civil war as well..
"Your government has the right to tell you what to do, you gave it the right through your vote or through your apathy."..."Constrained by a constituition most people have voted for or voted to change."
That's complete BS! A - NONE OF US ALIVE TODAY had any say in any constitution! B - even if we did, it got completely ignored. (in the US of A, approximately 17% of the total (citizenry) population of the country got it's way... the other 83% has to just suck it up! And, this obviously doesn't include those too young, ill, or non-citizens. C - the general line to be thrown around would be "well, if you don't like it, why don't you go to X" (eg, Syria, Iran, etc)... which is the point of this thread - people don't like the way things are being run, but they're not allowed to go to where they do like it...
Spiderboenz:
@Shining_brow I have been to Iraq. It was nice, except gor all of the people trying to kill me.
fada:
@shining brow:A) country A does have the right to say dont do X in country Y. If i commited murder in china and fled to my home, i can be tried at home for the murder i commited in china, why? because it is very illegal in both countries. now im not saying i will be brought to court for jay walking, but murder, most definitely. Your not actually suggesting if you fly to syria that its ok for you to shoot people? Thats what im getting from you here. B) scots was talking about government sponsored warfare, your talking about wanting to travel to a different country to commit murder. The difference is moraly slim but legaly vast. I have had several opportunities to vote on my constitution, despite it being 100 years old. Its not my fault if your side lost an election, its your fault for not working hard enough. Wait a few years and try again, this time work harder. Democracy, that shit actually works.
Shining_brow:
Fada... if you murder someone in China, and flee to the US, the US won't automatically do a damn thing to stop you. The Chinese authorities must make that request to the US authorities. Usually, the US authorities will take the request seriously, and do something about it...
Now, if you committed a crime in China that's not a crime in the US, how do you think that would go down?
B) if you read a little more carefully the things I wrote, I haven't directly indicated (I think) which side any of this refers to. Our govt has just said "It's illegal to go to Iraq or Syria except with an 'official' reason". So, it hasn't made the distinction between fighting for or against ISIS... Which is part of what sticks! I am not allowed to view the amazing history of these countries, cos they say so... to me, that's fucked up!
Also, yes there is this argument about 'state-sponsored murder'... are you suggesting it's ok to be a part of that, but not a part of the other side? (ie, terrorist murder?) What if we move the conflict to the Israel/Palestine conflict? I'd heard of many Jews from many nations going to fight for the Israeli army - why is that ok? Also, the current situation there is a war (well, ok, it's officially called a 'war'). So, why would being a part of ISIS now be 'murder', instead of just one side of a conflict?
(yeah, I know what the argument actually boils down to - whose side you're on).
Btw - I'm not American... and, unfortunately, the 2 major political parties see eye to eye on this issue. The parties I support are well behind those 2 (perhaps ironically enough, because they are the fairer, more intelligent options.. ie, don't appeal to one's immediate comfort zone).
(please note Fada & others... a) I have no issue in people wanting to fight and die for their beliefs.b) I would also have little problems in having ISIS wiped off the face of this planet - including all those who want to go and fight for that belief - by a fully backed UN military.)
I've often used this type of rhetoric. But I realized it is quite annoying when I hear it used against me. So I began to reconsider it... That is until I saw that Mexican alien waving a Mex flag at graduation. That grinded my gears and I'm trying to figure out how to reconcile between my version of "go back to your country" and the one that is used against me. Is it the same? I'll get back if I have any break throughs!
mmm, those are not ideal places to visit at the present time. I understand your feelings on the matter but how should I feel if my son would say: Hey Dad I wanna go visit Iraq or Syria? Of course I would not allow if I have the power...Freedom is one thing but making a stupid choice is another matter.
Well, Chinese can't really go back to being Chinese once they give up their Chinese nationality. Well I don't think they can, I think they can get special visas though...
But anyway... if a Chinese person says that to you... just tell them that you will go back home when all the Chinese in your country return to China. That usually shuts them up.
As for the restrictions on traveling to these countries... who wants to go there anyway? I mean, you MUST have a good reason if you want to go there... I think they are just afraid of terrorist groups capturing some moron (like the one Chinese guy) and then having it turn into a media circus.
Shining_brow:
Seriously???
http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/iraq02-01enl.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Syria#Ancient_Near_East
(I get if you're not interested in history, it's a "who cares" type of place, but still....)
Spiderboenz:
There are LOTS of historic and archeological sites in Iraq. Hopefully the violence dies down sometime while I am still alive.
Ancient Babylon?
Tower of Babel?
"The area of land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (Garden of Eden)"?
I think that the logic behind this has something to do with the fear of ISIS trained/indoctrinated fighters coming back to Australia and planning attacks after receiving training in Syria.
I enjoy these debates. We might agree, disagree, have fights.... but the wumaos have no fecking idea about what we are fighting about. They have no concept. They have no fucking concept of what debate is. Agree to disagree... how to translate that to chinese?
Your prime minister is George Bush's clone.
Shining_brow:
Unfortunately, it's been rare that we haven't had a clone of a US president... or at least a fawn-icator!
Yay for former Senator Bob Brown!!! Dubya was invited into parliament to give a speech... not even the frikken Queen has been allowed to do that! But good ole Bob gets up and walks out in protest!!! :D :D :D
Americans fought on both sides of the Spanish Civil War, so this isn't new. But nobody thought the fascists, or communists, were going to come back and blow up the subway...
ScotsAlan:
Yup. The Spanish civil war is a good example. Lots of foreigners fought in that. Ernest Hemmingway for one.
A gross violation of human rights? Grow up. If you think the world is all sunshine and daisies, go to those countries and see for yourself.
Shining_brow:
Your first and only post... awesome one!!
So tell me, since you figure this is such an important thing for you to say (insult included) - what do you think are a human's basic 'rights'??
(and, where do they come from?)
