Stop the boats. 5k a head. (cont. in Part 2)

[Jab]

Jiska, you should resign as a moderator

No, no he shouldn't. You should delete your account.

See how silly your post is. Jiska is going nowhere, but thanks for your feedback.

 

[midorigreenwood]

No, I'm not shifting the goal posts at all. I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying.

The comment was made that if people are fleeing Sri Lanka, they should flee to India and seek asylum there. I am arguing that they would be no better off in India than in Sri Lanka.

The Indian government isn't torturing or raping them so if you believe their claims,how can they possibly be no better off.

They have housing, healthcare , education and rights to employment. There are folks much worse off that deserve our attention more

 

[Jiska]

The Indian government isn't torturing or raping them so if you believe their claims,how can they possibly be no better off.

They have housing, healthcare , education and rights to employment. There are folks much worse off that deserve our attention more

I'm sorry. You've lost me. What exactly are you arguing?

That Australian shouldn't take Sri Lankan regufees because there are worse off people? Or that Sri Lankans should cross the border in to India and like in the ghettos? Or that the Sri Lankan Government is raping and tourting its citizens?

 

[Jiska]

Jiska, you should resign as a moderator

Why?

What a stupid thing to say.
He isn't paid for this. And he does a great job moderating the forums.
He is a human, so of course he will have his own opinion, but it's never interfered with his moderating duties.

Good luck to all but a few other posters having the ability to fairly moderate such a extreme board!

There's a feedback thread, you should contribute this opinion there.

No, no he shouldn't. You should delete your account.

See how silly your post is. Jiska is going nowhere, but thanks for your feedback.

Nawwwww. I'm feeling the love

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I don't particularly have any issue with Todman's opinion. I'd like him to clarify the reasoning behind his statement though.

 

[GuruJane]

Cudos to you, GuruJane, for twisting my comments regarding destinations for refugees into sources for refugees. Perhaps you could stop putting words in my mouth to suit your arguments.

Aw cut the hot air. India has been a regarded by UNHCR as a safe refuge for Sri Lankan Tamils for decades.

 

[midorigreenwood]

I'm sorry. You've lost me. What exactly are you arguing?

That Australian shouldn't take Sri Lankan regufees because there are worse off people? Or that Sri Lankans should cross the border in to India and like in the ghettos? Or that the Sri Lankan Government is raping and tourting its citizens?

*facepalm*

you're obviously a newbie in this thread so perhaps it'd be better to go back and read through the hundred odd pages if I've lost you

TL;DR : aussie policies enacted by the previous government have encouraged folks like Sri Lankan asylum seekers to make an unsafe voyage over thousands of kilometres in search for a better life rather than the obvious option of India where they can nearly walk to at low tide and have common cultural ties.

I've already argued that imo the current system is unworkable and it would be better for Australia to exclusively take refugees through our humanitarian program.

I can't be arsed going around in circles for the tenth time in this thread so I'll leave it at that until something new is reported.

 

[Maggie5]

Couldn't find anything more recent but not according to this article from July 2008. Decades?
http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/m...hcrs-role-in-refugee-protection-in-india.html

Despite its limitations, however, the UNHCR is often the last beacon of hope for many refugees who flee to India in search of a secure refuge. However, in the recent past, refugees under UNHCR protection have been losing faith in a system that is plagued by insensitivity and inefficiency.

 

[Jiska]

*facepalm*

you're obviously a newbie in this thread so perhaps it'd be better to go back and read through the hundred odd pages if I've lost you

TL;DR : aussie policies enacted by the previous government have encouraged folks like Sri Lankan asylum seekers to make an unsafe voyage over thousands of kilometres in search for a better life rather than the obvious option of India which they can nearly walk to at low tide and have common cultural ties.

I've already argued that imo the current system is unworkable and it would be better for Australia to exclusively take refugees through our humanitarian program.

I can't be arsed going around in circles for the tenth time in this thread so I'll leave it at that until something new is reported.

I've been posting in this thread for a few months, but in consideration of the fact there's 265 pages, fair to say I haven't read them all

 

[Todman]

Nawwwww. I'm feeling the love

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I don't particularly have any issue with Todman's opinion. I'd like him to clarify the reasoning behind his statement though.

XXXOOO

 

[louismaxwell]

Couldn't find anything more recent but not according to this article from July 2008. Decades?
http://infochangeindia.org/agenda/m...hcrs-role-in-refugee-protection-in-india.html

Despite its limitations, however, the UNHCR is often the last beacon of hope for many refugees who flee to India in search of a secure refuge. However, in the recent past, refugees under UNHCR protection have been losing faith in a system that is plagued by insensitivity and inefficiency.

What a ridiculous post, now your saying India is unsafe, its one of the few democratic countries in the region, it has problems but which country wouldn't with over a billion citizens. I wondered why other forum members seemed to single your posts to have a go at, now i know why.

 

[little graham]

What a ridiculous post, now your saying India is unsafe, its one of the few democratic countries in the region, it has problems but which country wouldn't with over a billion citizens. I wondered why other forum members seemed to single your posts to have a go at, now i know why.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/18/world/asia/mumbai-terror-attacks/

 

[The Coup]

What a ridiculous post, now your saying India is unsafe, its one of the few democratic countries in the region, it has problems but which country wouldn't with over a billion citizens. I wondered why other forum members seemed to single your posts to have a go at, now i know why.

What kind of permanent protection can India offer to refugees?

 

[louismaxwell]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/18/world/asia/mumbai-terror-attacks/

Yes India suffered a terror attack but many other countries have also, Britian Usa Russia Indonesia Thailand the list is too numerous to mention so your point.

 

[The Coup]

Yes India suffered a terror attack but many other countries have also, Britian Usa Russia Indonesia Thailand the list is too numerous to mention so your point.

India have a full blown Maoist insurgency going on in the majority of their provinces.

India have Kashmir.

India are not signatories to the UN Convention and can't offer legal recognition to refugees.

Indian refugee camps are unsafe hellholes with severe crime and public health issues. They're designed as a temporary reprieve, like the Thai camps for Burmese refugees.

 

[Max zero]

You've changed your definition mid sentence here. Whilst I would agree that population growth without the structural underpinnings of an economy that can handle it is a sort of pyramid scheme it does lead to growth. Population growth leads to greater demand, that is irrefutable. You can't then say oh it doesn't lead to growth because it doesn't lead to "real" growth. They're two completely different arguments.

You owe Brown Bottle an apology for saying he had a limited understanding of economics because the Treasury would and has said the exact same thing before.




http://www.treasury.gov.au/Publicat...-Issue-2/Report/Part-1-Reasons-for-resilience

Thankfully in the case of Australia well managed population growth can actually vastly improve productivity as the biggest problems in the countries economy, environment and politics since colonization have been associated with a lack of population, rather than excess.

And what was the GDP per capita? If the GDP raises at the same rate the population does is there any actual growth or are we simply maintaining?

Real growth was referring to growth post inflation. Which you linked noted as well. Rising prices leads to increases in nominal growth. The very source you provided uses the term real GDP and nominal GDP.

Demand on its own is useless. Simply wanting s**t is not growth.

A lack of population causes environment issues? Thats a new one. You only need constant population growth for your economic if you are trying to run an constantly growing consumption machine. A economic system which is based on debt and thus shifting financial burdens onto later generations.

Utopia for a Keynesian drone.

 

[Max zero]

There are none so blind... maybe go back and check the front page of the Daily Tele through 2007 mate, and tell me what it reminds you of? How did you vote in 2007?

Nothing to add about the irreparable damage that has been done to Australian society by all of those diverse ethnicities that have flooded in over the last 60 or 70 years mate?

Didn't vote for either major party in 2007 so yet another strike for your sterotyping.

World was changed a lot.

If we must bring in people why not be a little selective?

 

[Max zero]

Louis you're a classic. I'm glad that Perth doesn't have a monopoly on provincial attitudes. Shouldn't you be proud of living in a global city? Look at how far Melbourne has come in the last twenty years. Coming from Perth I'm battle hardened/traumatised from speaking to people with these kind of attitudes on a regular basis. If there's one thing you could say about Australia it's that it's vast. I don't understand why people in this country view it as a right to have a 4*2 in the centre of a major capital city.

Saying that as I said, yes, public transport needs to be managed better but slowing population growth down isn't going to do a thing about that. It's just the approval and planning process of Australian governments.

Well isn't it up to the people to what they want their country to be? If people want cities with 4x2 in capital cities why the hell shouldn't they? Maybe the city won't grow into the overseas giants but is that such a bad thing?

If you want to live in a shoebox in rat city there are plenty of cities in the world that will welcome you with open arms. Not every city has to follow the same rules.

 

[mottrain]

India have a full blown Maoist insurgency going on in the majority of their provinces.

India have Kashmir.

India are not signatories to the UN Convention and can't offer legal recognition to refugees.

Indian refugee camps are unsafe hellholes with severe crime and public health issues. They're designed as a temporary reprieve, like the Thai camps for Burmese refugees.

There is no reason why they can't assist refugees. Secondly there's the contradictions where we have people whinging with one country not signing up and then tearing whwhen the deal is made with a country who has.

 

[louismaxwell]

India have a full blown Maoist insurgency going on in the majority of their provinces.

India have Kashmir.

India are not signatories to the UN Convention and can't offer legal recognition to refugees.

Indian refugee camps are unsafe hellholes with severe crime and public health issues. They're designed as a temporary reprieve, like the Thai camps for Burmese refugees.

The maoist insurgency in India is only in one or two northern states and it is well under control, the rest of the country doesn't have this issue at all. Please check this out as it will relieve your concern that refugees will be affected by this very minor insurgency.

 

[Floor Pie]

There is no reason why they can't assist refugees. Secondly there's the contradictions where we have people whinging with one country not signing up and then tearing whwhen the deal is made with a country who has.

There is no reason they can't assist refugees?
In what way?

Is there any reason that we can't?

 

[mottrain]

There is no reason they can't assist refugees?
In what way?

Is there any reason that we can't?

Both alreafdy do. The Coup claimed India not signing the treaty prevents them from helping refos.

 

[mottrain]

Good to see some questions are being asked of a certain charity who has purportedly manufactured examples of human rights mistreatments in the detention complexes.

 

[The Coup]

The maoist insurgency in India is only in one or two northern states and it is well under control, the rest of the country doesn't have this issue at all. Please check this out as it will relieve your concern that refugees will be affected by this very minor insurgency.

Ok so if you're just going to troll I'm going to put you on the ignore list next time. Just a warning.

 

[The Coup]

Both alreafdy do. The Coup claimed India not signing the treaty prevents them from helping refos.

Is that what I claimed mot? Really?

 

[The Coup]

There is no reason why they can't assist refugees. Secondly there's the contradictions where we have people whinging with one country not signing up and then tearing whwhen the deal is made with a country who has.

How is that a contradiction to be critical of both India and Cambodia on practical grounds as well as legal grounds?