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

[romeoh]

Raise it to 30k then. Now will you stop dodging?

Myself, and several other posters, have numerous times over the months responded with numbers to this fixation you have. You can go back and have a look I can't be bothered because you never listen, or if it doesn't accord with your scenario, you just discount it.
Now can you actually answer my questions please, that you have not ever answered.
You can start with this one that you can't seem to answer
Do you think 12-14,000 out of 50 million is doing our fair share?
(Or what would be our fair share?)

 

[Max zero]

Myself, and several other posters, have numerous times over the months responded with numbers to this fixation you have. You can go back and have a look I can't be bothered because you never listen, or if it doesn't accord with your scenario, you just discount it.
Now can you actually answer my questions please, that you have not ever answered.

What question is that exactly? Our refugee intake per capita? We have a world ranking of 22 last I checked. No brilliant but not pathetic either.

Actually you haven't answered squat. The last time we discussed this you actually admitted that you had not actually thought about what happens when our limit is reached or pull factors. Are you still clueless about it that's why you won't answer?

 

[romeoh]

What question is that exactly? Our refugee intake per capita? We have a world ranking of 22 last I checked. No brilliant but not pathetic either.

Actually you haven't answered squat. The last time we discussed this you actually admitted that you had not actually thought about what happens when our limit is reached or pull factors. Are you still clueless about it that's why you won't answer?

Crikey Max-the question is there in black and white-just answer it will you.
Do you think 12-14,000 out of 50 million is doing our fair share?( or what do you see as our fair share)
No need to be rude just because we don't agree-think its fair to say I have tried to conduct a reasonable discussion with you a number of times, and yep I don't have all the answers-no one in the world does from what I can see re this issue. ( although I can't say I recall that last discussion) But I know its not going away, and I know that just stopping the intake at 12,000 is not good enough for a privileged and humane country.

 

[Max zero]

Crikey Max-the question is there in black and white-just answer it will you.
Do you think 12-14,000 out of 50 million is doing our fair share?( or what do you see as our fair share)
No need to be rude just because we don't agree-think its fair to say I have tried to conduct a reasonable discussion with you a number of times, and yep I don't have all the answers-no one in the world does from what I can see re this issue. ( although I can't say I recall that last discussion) But I know its not going away, and I know that just stopping the intake at 12,000 is not good enough for a privileged and humane country.

But your question is irrelevant, that's what you don't seem to get.

Lets say 50,000k would be 'a fair share'. Is the problem now solved? Will we now have no more immigration issues? No? So why are you constantly worrying about it? You are asking the wrong questions.

WHATEVER the number is (unless we have no limit) we will run into the SAME issues (accommodation, processing times, safety, people smugglers, etc). How do we fix THOSE issues?

You keep fixating on what 'should be' instead of focusing on what actually is happening.

 

[romeoh]

But your question is irrelevant, that's what you don't seem to get.

Lets say 50,000k would be 'a fair share'. Is the problem now solved? Will we now have no more immigration issues? No? So why are you constantly worrying about it? You are asking the wrong questions.

WHATEVER the number is (unless we have no limit) we will run into the SAME issues (accommodation, processing times, safety, people smugglers, etc). How do we fix THOSE issues?

You keep fixating on what 'should be' instead of focusing on what actually is happening.

Classic-you still haven't answered the question. And it is exactly the right question.
I am not 'constantly worrying about it'-you are the one who has a fixation on the numbers remember?
What is actually happening is that a lot of people need resettling and your response is to ignore it, hope it will go away or that someone else deals with it.
That'll do me thank you-not going to get anywhere.

 

[Max zero]

Classic-you still haven't answered the question. And it is exactly the right question.
I am not 'constantly worrying about it'-you are the one who has a fixation on the numbers remember?
What is actually happening is that a lot of people need resettling and your response is to ignore it, hope it will go away or that someone else deals with it.
That'll do me thank you-not going to get anywhere.

Your response is that we take a certain amount of people (how many you are vague about) and when asked:

How we will enforce (or if we even will) said limit, you don't respond.
Why this won't encourage people smugglers, you don't respond.
Won't this encourage more people to apply for asylum, you don't respond.

These are the real problems that have to be solved with ANY type of immigration system. None of which you (or Maggie5 or FloorPie, etc) have any answers too.

It is a waste of time 'debating' with you because you basically admit you have NO answers. So why are you wasting everyone's time if you have nothing to contribute?

 

[romeoh]

Your response is that we take a certain amount of people (how many you are vague about) and when asked:

How we will enforce (or if we even will) said limit, you don't respond.
Why this won't encourage people smugglers, you don't respond.
Won't this encourage more people to apply for asylum, you don't respond.

These are the real problems that have to be solved with ANY type of immigration system. None of which you (or Maggie5 or FloorPie, etc) have any answers too.

It is a waste of time 'debating' with you because you basically admit you have NO answers. So why are you wasting everyone's time if you have nothing to contribute?

Still waiting.

 

[Todman]

Romeoh knows there is no correct answer so he's baiting you.

 

[romeoh]

Romeoh knows there is no correct answer so he's baiting you.

Haha Toddy-i know there is a correct answer but that some people can't quite seem to find their moral touchstone.
Is it too much too ask that a simple question gets answered? Can you answer it Toddy?
Do you think taking 12,000 of 50 million is doing our fair share ( and could we take a few more, and what would that be?).

 

[romeoh]

Maxy, Toddy-we just approach this from different positions so not sure why you have to get so antsy.
I start from the moral questions. You start from the logistics. Naturally I believe I am starting from the proper place and you are starting from the wrong stance.
So I start off asking
are there lots of refugees in the world? ( 50 million)
are we taking some of them? ( yep 12,000)
are we taking fewer even though the numbers are growing ( yep-see link below)
are we taking our fair share? ( nope- took 0.6 of global total)
are we capable of taking more ? ( yep-triple A rating, unemployment ate 5.8, lots of land, good education and health services etc-means we are well placed to take more)
are some poor countries taking more that their fair share ( yep -more than half of the refugees (54%) are hosted by just nine countries – Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Kenya, Chad, Ethiopia, and China)

Then when I see that we do need to do more, I look at the logistics. I make the assumption that countries can put systems in place to manage the refugees. I also make the assumption that it is a complex problem with no easy solutions. I also consider it is essential for countries, in regions, to work together. Midori had some good links to suggestion that I consider as a good way to go back a page or so-have a look.( last link) Am not sure if it will work, but worth a try. Its not enough to say we have it sorted here, because on an ethical level, we don't, so other things need to be tried. Many gov'ts in the world are working away at this-its not simple.
Someone is getting paid big bucks to try and sort these logistics out but I can suggest that we can take:
50,000 a year, at the moment. It can go up and down. That can change because the global situation is changing.( have said this lots of times already). It can also change because that number may only be sustainable for a few years, after that numbers would need to be reduced)
Have already said lots of times that most refugees can't get here because they don't have the means and if you go an look at the figures you will see that is the case. So your 'we will get overrun' is just paranoia.
If there are good systems in place, the people smugglers will be less of an issue ( not that I see it a such a problem in any case)
Good graphs here re our 'role' that some of you might find easier to understand.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/as-w...-australia-goes-backwards-20140620-3ajqj.html

 

[romeoh]

Romeoh knows there is no correct answer so he's baiting you.

Still waiting Toddy.

 

[Todman]

Haha Toddy-i know there is a correct answer but that some people can't quite seem to find their moral touchstone.
Is it too much too ask that a simple question gets answered? Can you answer it Toddy?
Do you think taking 12,000 of 50 million is doing our fair share ( and could we take a few more, and what would that be?).

12,000 is more than our fair share.

 

[Brown Bottle]

12,000 is more than our fair share.

12,000 more?

 

[romeoh]

12,000 is more than our fair share.

Thanks Toddy. of course I can't agree but I appreciate the response.

 

[GuruJane]

Meds has always been an apologist for the far right element but surely he is not serious with this little gem.

Reality check: http://www.smh.com.au/national/melb...ouldbe-fighters-to-syria-20150314-1433pa.html

A people-smuggling ring that was promising to bring Lebanese asylum seekers to Australia by boat was also believed to be secretly helping people to travel to Syria to join the fighting there.
The revelations that a lawyer, accountant, a "travel agent" and a community member who made "fake international passports" were involved in the covert operations were contained in documents obtained by Fairfax Media.

The documents were obtained under freedom of information laws following the sinking of an asylum seeker boat off Java in late 2013 that killed dozens of Lebanese coming from the poor northern region of Akkar. The documents reveal that the AFP had been given the names and telephone numbers and in some cases the workplace of those allegedly involved as well as the name of a "travel agent" who was thought to be assisting people going to Syria.

Initial inquiries by the AFP showed that one of the people named had previously been found trying to leave the country with large amounts of cash and another had moved large amounts of money to family members. But the AFP decided that the movement of money was not within the normal people smuggling channels and the lawyer had also made some large movements but that was not unreasonable given his profession.
The named "travel agent" assisting people to get to Syria was not investigated further because the AFP was unsure if the person named was the same person they had located and that person did not work in a travel agency.

The information had been given to the AFP just months beforeThe Sun-Herald revealed that the authorities were cancelling dozens of passports of Australians to stop them travelling to the Middle East to join the fighting.

Seems the AFP are now re-investigating.

 

[Todman]

are we capable of taking more ? ( yep-triple A rating, unemployment ate 5.8, lots of land, good education and health services etc-means we are well placed to take more)

You do realise that any vacant land that has not already been taken up is not worth taking up. After 225 years all the quality land has been taken and all the crap land turned into a national parks.

Prehaps you are planning to place (dump) these refugees in small rural towns that are struggling to survive. If we don't live there why should they?

 

[romeoh]

You do realise that any vacant land that has not already been taken up is not worth taking up. After 225 years all the quality land has been taken and all the crap land turned into a national parks.

Prehaps you are planning to place (dump) these refugees in small rural towns that are struggling to survive. If we don't live there why should they?

I would dispute this. I drive through Victorian countryside a fair bit-tons of land available there. Who knows how much that means Queensland and NSW have? How come the population of Victoria is growing so much if there is no room-the developers seem to be finding plenty of room to build.( plenty of apartments available to international students I notice)
Regardless of refugees or not, one of the ways forward in our communities is to grow the rural towns-Bendigo, Ballarat, Castlemaine are examples of growing rural areas. Perhaps instead of populating those towns with 417 people, real refugees could settle there and work in the Bacon factory?
ps how do you know I don't live there?

 

[Todman]

I would dispute this. I drive through Victorian countryside a fair bit-tons of land available there. Who knows how much that means Queensland and NSW have? How come the population of Victoria is growing so much if there is no room-the developers seem to be finding plenty of room to build.( plenty of apartments available to international students I notice)
Regardless of refugees or not, one of the ways forward in our communities is to grow the rural towns-Bendigo, Ballarat, Castlemaine are examples of growing rural areas. Perhaps instead of populating those towns with 457 people, real refugees could settle there and work in the Bacon factory?

You know we can't bring in Moslems to work in a bacon factory don't you.

You know that all decent land is currently being farmed. Do you want Centrelink to buy farms so they can put refugees on it? How do you expect them to farm without working capital? Loans from Centrelink?

 

[Maggie5]

You know we can't bring in Moslems to work in a bacon factory don't you.

You know that all decent land is currently being farmed. Do you want Centrelink to buy farms so they can put refugees on it? How do you expect them to farm without working capital? Loans from Centrelink?

They are not all Muslims, plenty of Christian refugees in Manus and PNG.
I think that romeoh may have been referring to 417 Working Holiday Visas and also the Regional Employment visas, not all about 457 visas. Australia has a smorgasbord of visas available where one can work in Australia then forget to go home.

 

[Lebbo73]

Still waiting.

Yes he is!

 

[Todman]

They are not all Muslims, plenty of Christian refugees in Manus and PNG.
I think that romeoh may have been referring to 417 Working Holiday Visas and also the Regional Employment visas, not all about 457 visas. Australia has a smorgasbord of visas available where one can work in Australia then forget to go home.

Plenty of local born willing to look for a job as well.

 

[Maggie5]

Plenty of local born willing to look for a job as well.

I was talking about freeloading legal migrants that call Australia home.

 

[Todman]

I was talking about freeloading legal migrants that call Australia home.

I think you better rephrase that comment, it's making you sound bigoted and racist.

 

[Maggie5]

I think you better rephrase that comment, it's making you sound bigoted and racist.

Maybe you should reevaluate your interpretation or perception of what I posted. Better still check Immigration site to see how many people that have overstayed their respective visas and are nowhere to be found.

 

[Max zero]

Maxy, Toddy-we just approach this from different positions so not sure why you have to get so antsy.
I start from the moral questions. You start from the logistics. Naturally I believe I am starting from the proper place and you are starting from the wrong stance.
So I start off asking
are there lots of refugees in the world? ( 50 million)
are we taking some of them? ( yep 12,000)
are we taking fewer even though the numbers are growing ( yep-see link below)
are we taking our fair share? ( nope- took 0.6 of global total)
are we capable of taking more ? ( yep-triple A rating, unemployment ate 5.8, lots of land, good education and health services etc-means we are well placed to take more)
are some poor countries taking more that their fair share ( yep -more than half of the refugees (54%) are hosted by just nine countries – Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Kenya, Chad, Ethiopia, and China)

Then when I see that we do need to do more, I look at the logistics. I make the assumption that countries can put systems in place to manage the refugees. I also make the assumption that it is a complex problem with no easy solutions. I also consider it is essential for countries, in regions, to work together. Midori had some good links to suggestion that I consider as a good way to go back a page or so-have a look.( last link) Am not sure if it will work, but worth a try. Its not enough to say we have it sorted here, because on an ethical level, we don't, so other things need to be tried. Many gov'ts in the world are working away at this-its not simple.
Someone is getting paid big bucks to try and sort these logistics out but I can suggest that we can take:
50,000 a year, at the moment. It can go up and down. That can change because the global situation is changing.( have said this lots of times already). It can also change because that number may only be sustainable for a few years, after that numbers would need to be reduced)
Have already said lots of times that most refugees can't get here because they don't have the means and if you go an look at the figures you will see that is the case. So your 'we will get overrun' is just paranoia.
If there are good systems in place, the people smugglers will be less of an issue ( not that I see it a such a problem in any case)
Good graphs here re our 'role' that some of you might find easier to understand.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/as-w...-australia-goes-backwards-20140620-3ajqj.html

So after all your moral questions you end up where I am already: logistics. I just don't waste my time with irrelevant questions.

Morally we should take as many as we can. Logistics will be (and have always been the limitation). So why not start there?

You make a lot of assumptions based on..what exactly?

You say raise the limit to 50k. Okay fine. Then if needs be lower it after. Lets say we get 50k+ applicants for a few years, on the year we reduce it what happens to the people we refuse? I assume you support onshore processing?

You act like its a tap we turn on and off and demand will respond accordingly. This whole issue came up because these asylum seekers didn't want to wait in a Indonesia. Why would they wait under your system?

If there are good systems in place, the people smugglers will be less of an issue ( not that I see it a such a problem in any case)

You acknowledge that people and countries are working on it and that the solution will be hard to find. Has it occurred to you that there may not be an answer short of global consensus? Can you think of any country that has these 'good systems'?