Discussion Random Discussion

[VDS66]

I particularly despise this political diversionary tactic. If we have to we could have a mature discussion about illegal immigration, airports, visas, genocide, displaced people etc. But no, let’s continue to take it out on a bunch of desperate people with kids, risking their lives on leaking boats.
Probably easier than explaining why a stack of people with a disability can’t access services under the NDIS because providers can’t afford to deliver services at the NDIS capped rates. There are none of the promised new big players because they aren’t stupid. Meanwhile existing services go broke, try and wait it out, refuse to take on anyone with anything remotely difficult or use a range of these strategies.
Pompous scammers (politicians) then proclaim how fantastic it is that all these billions are being pumped into delivering services. I estimate there is either no new money or very little new money actually being spent. They really haven’t gone past repackaging old money.

I just read this morning that over 27000 asylum seekers arrived by plane in 2018 with most found to be duds.

I also read where it costs us about $1600 per day per refugee to keep them on the islands.

The irony here is the people complaining how easy refugees get it with social security when settled and yet we are spending $20m per month of tax payers money to keep 1000 of them off shore.

So go figure.

 

[mightymalaka]

George

I notice this pic has Billings in it and the other one has Snake?
Also just noticed Ben Long, so clearly this is not the leadership group. The other one is!

Was about to go on a very educational rant about wtf Billings is doing in the leadership group
Alas i shall keep my powder dry! I'm getting good at that these days!
Ironically if Longy has a season where he fully entrenches himself in the team as i hope, i can actually see
him in next years leadership group!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I just read this morning that over 27000 asylum seekers arrived by plane in 2018 with most found to be duds.

I also read where it costs us about $1600 per day per refugee to keep them on the islands.

The irony here is the people complaining how easy refugees get it with social security when settled and yet we are spending $20m per month of tax payers money to keep 1000 of them off shore.

So go figure.

It's probably better they come by plane.
If it was easy to get in by boat, more would come by boat. That's not a good result in anyone's eyes.

I hate the United Nations because they release crap like this....
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...egal-detention-of-asylum-seekers-and-refugees

-----------
The longest in detention is an Afghan asylum seeker, who has been held in Australian detention centres continuously since 2009.

His claim for protection has been rejected but he still has appeals before the courts, and his case has been complicated by the Australian government leaking his personal details online, potentially compromising his safety in his home country.
--------------
So as a bad example they cite a guy who has been rejected, yet is able to legally appeal the decision. His choice and we facilitate it.
I wonder how much of the detention cost is related to legal proceedings.

Are the United Nations speaking out against Singapore?....they must be good , because , as a country a fifth of the population of Australia, they have NO refugee's in detention.

 

[VDS66]

It's probably better they come by plane.
If it was easy to get in by boat, more would come by boat. That's not a good result in anyone's eyes.

I hate the United Nations because they release crap like this....
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...egal-detention-of-asylum-seekers-and-refugees

-----------
The longest in detention is an Afghan asylum seeker, who has been held in Australian detention centres continuously since 2009.

His claim for protection has been rejected but he still has appeals before the courts, and his case has been complicated by the Australian government leaking his personal details online, potentially compromising his safety in his home country.
--------------
So as a bad example they cite a guy who has been rejected, yet is able to legally appeal the decision. His choice and we facilitate it.
I wonder how much of the detention cost is related to legal proceedings.

Are the United Nations speaking out against Singapore?....they must be good , because , as a country a fifth of the population of Australia, they have NO refugee's in detention.

Detention costs are related to the company that looks after the camps, security etc.

The two guys who own it are under investigation because they charge so much and provide so little.

Why not just settle them in NZ?

Once again your argument defaults to your "if others don't give a s**t, why should we?"

This isn't about Singapore, it's about how we treat people. And how much it costs us taxpayers!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Detention costs are related to the company that looks after the camps, security etc.

The two guys who own it are under investigation because they charge so much and provide so little.

Why not just settle them in NZ?

Once again your argument defaults to your "if others don't give a s**t, why should we?"

This isn't about Singapore, it's about how we treat people. And how much it costs us taxpayers!

My argument was more about why Australia gets singled out as a poor example.
How many of the longer term detainee's have been refused refugee status and are appealing? Is it significant?
Then there's another problem, someone comes on a temporary visa, shows themselves to be an antisocial criminal , we refuse entry, no-one else wants them, what happens to them?

 

[mightymalaka]

My argument was more about why Australia gets singled out as a poor example.
How many of the longer term detainee's have been refused refugee status and are appealing? Is it significant?
Then there's another problem, someone comes on a temporary visa, shows themselves to be an antisocial criminal , we refuse entry, no-one else wants them, what happens to them?

We get singled out, because we ARE a poor example!
Some appalling opinions in this country to do with refugees when you consider just how little we take in the grander scheme of things
as opposed to so many other poorer nations! Just because Singapore are similarly s**t, it does not absolve us from our own shame!

 

[gringo2011]

I particularly despise this political diversionary tactic. If we have to we could have a mature discussion about illegal immigration, airports, visas, genocide, displaced people etc. But no, let’s continue to take it out on a bunch of desperate people with kids, risking their lives on leaking boats.
Probably easier than explaining why a stack of people with a disability can’t access services under the NDIS because providers can’t afford to deliver services at the NDIS capped rates. There are none of the promised new big players because they aren’t stupid. Meanwhile existing services go broke, try and wait it out, refuse to take on anyone with anything remotely difficult or use a range of these strategies.
Pompous scammers (politicians) then proclaim how fantastic it is that all these billions are being pumped into delivering services. I estimate there is either no new money or very little new money actually being spent. They really haven’t gone past repackaging old money.

The way government sends out money these days seems to lack any accountability to provide anything like a service.

 

[Yawkey way]

We get singled out, because we ARE a poor example!
Some appalling opinions in this country to do with refugees when you consider just how little we take in the grander scheme of things
as opposed to so many other poorer nations! Just because Singapore are similarly s**t, it does not absolve us from our own shame!

We get a bum wrap as do others imo, people forget that the various UN bodies often have some deplorable members who love to cast western countries in a bad light.

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/global-resettlement-statistics/

This is a moving picture which of course has changed in the last several years but as you can see in this report the US, Canada, Australia, Sweden and norway literally were the UN resettlement program for the period 2004 - 2016, taking 95% of refugees resettled in that period.

So in the grander scheme of things 158,000 resettled in that period by Australia is fantastic and even more impressive when calculated on a per population basis.

It’s not the answer anyway imo but that’s a topic for another day.

 

[sunny3193]

Why is it when people talk of Jordan Peterson, I am reminded of Brian of Nazareth?

 

[Yawkey way]

Detention costs are related to the company that looks after the camps, security etc.

The two guys who own it are under investigation because they charge so much and provide so little.

Why not just settle them in NZ?

Once again your argument defaults to your "if others don't give a s**t, why should we?"

This isn't about Singapore, it's about how we treat people. And how much it costs us taxpayers!

It was always going to cost us a fortune, I don’t think that was even a consideration at that time.

It’s not hard to find people who will bag out the facilities and conditions, that’s a given considering what’s at stake.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Malaysia have appalling detention facilities, yet they settle far more refugee's per capita than Australia do. So who is better?
New Zealand and USA hardly have any.

Some places in Europe such as Belgium and Germany have more refugee's per capita than Australia, while others like Italy have around the same.
Turkey have been taking millions, Spain only around 10 000.
South Korea ??? Japan??? Saudia Arabia ( despite being close to Syria , Iraq and Iran all who have stacks of refugee's .

Personally I don't consider that Australia has great infrastructure. For example, unless you want to put them up in the CBD, our public transport is appalling.
As it stands we are probably middle of the road on refugee intake. I don't know , but how much of the long term detention is due to rejected refugee's appealing the findings?

I'm just a bit sick of the trend of Australians telling other Australians how s**t we are all the time.

 

[VDS66]

It was always going to cost us a fortune, I don’t think that was even a consideration at that time.

It’s not hard to find people who will bag out the facilities and conditions, that’s a given considering what’s at stake.

Google the company Paladin.

 

[VDS66]

Malaysia have appalling detention facilities, yet they settle far more refugee's per capita than Australia do. So who is better?
New Zealand and USA hardly have any.

Some places in Europe such as Belgium and Germany have more refugee's per capita than Australia, while others like Italy have around the same.
Turkey have been taking millions, Spain only around 10 000.
South Korea ??? Japan??? Saudia Arabia ( despite being close to Syria , Iraq and Iran all who have stacks of refugee's .

Personally I don't consider that Australia has great infrastructure. For example, unless you want to put them up in the CBD, our public transport is appalling.
As it stands we are probably middle of the road on refugee intake. I don't know , but how much of the long term detention is due to rejected refugee's appealing the findings?

I'm just a bit sick of the trend of Australians telling other Australians how s**t we are all the time.

That last sentence sums up your approach.

No point discussing these things so please don't engage with my posts in the future.

Cheers.

 

[Yawkey way]

Google the company Paladin.

Whoa that’s highly irregular to say the least.

A former colleague of mine that I’m still friends with was the assistant secretary with oversight of manus at one stage. He retired in 2015 he’s a really good guy, a straight arrow with a real commitment to fairness and social justice.

It’s hard to believe that paladin being awarded that contract won’t set off an absolute storm that’s likely to claim a few scalps, amazing stuff.

 

[VDS66]

Whoa that’s highly irregular to say the least.

A former colleague of mine that I’m still friends with was the assistant secretary with oversight of manus at one stage. He retired in 2015 he’s a really good guy, a straight arrow with a real commitment to fairness and social justice.

It’s hard to believe that paladin being awarded that contract won’t set off an absolute storm that’s likely to claim a few scalps, amazing stuff.

Smells of incompetence at the highest level.

The point I was making is that we have people complaining that refugees are pampered with social security whilst ordinary folk struggle.

And yet we turn a blind eye to this sort of waste.

Why not just process them and settle them?

At least with social security, they spend it to survive and the money comes back into the economy.

 

[St Muir]

Google the company Paladin.

This is a good link https://www.afr.com/news/politics/n...t-of-manus-contractor-paladin-20190213-h1b7jk

 

[gringo2011]

Smells of incompetence at the highest level.

The point I was making is that we have people complaining that refugees are pampered with social security whilst ordinary folk struggle.

And yet we turn a blind eye to this sort of waste.

Why not just process them and settle them?

At least with social security, they spend it to survive and the money comes back into the economy.

The irony of tough on crime is that you create desperate people by making an uneven society and then pay $323 dollars a day to keep them locked up. Spend on creating more opportunity or education and its better for everyone.

The refugees are a a distraction while the government bring in around 200,000 people per year as migrants only around 7000 are humanitarian refugees. A complicit media have created a demon by saying terrorists would come in with the intake but realistically they are more likely to fly in if not born here.

 

[VDS66]

The irony of tough on crime is that you create desperate people by making an uneven society and then pay $323 dollars a day to keep them locked up. Spend on creating more opportunity or education and its better for everyone.

The refugees are a a distraction while the government bring in around 200,000 people per year as migrants only around 7000 are humanitarian refugees. A complicit media have created a demon by saying terrorists would come in with the intake but realistically they are more likely to fly in if not born here.

Careful. You're starting to sound like a bleeding heart leftie.

Apparently 27,973 arrived by plane last year seeking asylum. The majority were knocked back on the basis they were not genuine refugees.

My understanding is that the 1000 we ate holding on Manus and Nauru are actual refugees, but we can't settle them anywhere. I'll stand corrected if in wring on their status.

Stop the planes!

 

[Yawkey way]

Smells of incompetence at the highest level.

The point I was making is that we have people complaining that refugees are pampered with social security whilst ordinary folk struggle.

And yet we turn a blind eye to this sort of waste.

Why not just process them and settle them?

At least with social security, they spend it to survive and the money comes back into the economy.

Well that would run contrary to the Howard narrative that has been generally accepted, stop the boats, deaths at sea we determine who comes and how etc.

That’s what I meant originally about cost being a secondary consideration, they had to pay up to find someone to take them etc.

Now we’re in a situation where if you bring them or more correctly what’s left of the refugees to the mainland and the boats start again well the opposition of the day will bell you with it, their all scared of being seen as weak on border security.

You must admit that refugee boats are a great photo opportunity, of course most of the public are well aware that many more arrive by plane but it’s that threat of invasion by sea that seems to play so well at election time.

Just have a quick look back, at election time scare campaigns seem to work really well here.

 

[VDS66]

 

[gringo2011]

Well that would run contrary to the Howard narrative that has been generally accepted, stop the boats, deaths at sea we determine who comes and how etc.

That’s what I meant originally about cost being a secondary consideration, they had to pay up to find someone to take them etc.

Now we’re in a situation where if you bring them or more correctly what’s left of the refugees to the mainland and the boats start again well the opposition of the day will bell you with it, their all scared of being seen as weak on border security.

You must admit that refugee boats are a great photo opportunity, of course most of the public are well aware that many more arrive by plane but it’s that threat of invasion by sea that seems to play so well at election time.

Just have a quick look back, at election time scare campaigns seem to work really well here.

They sell a narrative that the mainstream media could change in a weekend. The off shore detention is because we have an obligation under international law to take refugees that are assessed here as legitimately in danger. Unfortunately the charade means we have to literally pay billions to house very few off shore. If we processed them legitimately and humanely they would get through quicker, give jobs to locals and all the associated industries that would benefit and we could monitor them with our health, mental services and government officers.

Unfortunately the truth is second to political opportunism and any little edge that the politicians can gain is fair game. * the lives of a some nobodies when people like Barnaby Joyce needs some more time to rort the system.

 

[gringo2011]

America and it's allies have helped Iraq by levelling their country and killing 200,000 their citizens to save them from a despot, same for Syria, Libya and Afganistan. Then we get all these ingrates storming our borders wanting to get away from our help. ******* campaigners should send us gifts instead of their children.

 

[Yawkey way]

They sell a narrative that the mainstream media could change in a weekend. The off shore detention is because we have an obligation under international law to take refugees that are assessed here as legitimately in danger. Unfortunately the charade means we have to literally pay billions to house very few off shore. If we processed them legitimately and humanely they would get through quicker, give jobs to locals and all the associated industries that would benefit and we could monitor them with our health, mental services and government officers.

Unfortunately the truth is second to political opportunism and any little edge that the politicians can gain is fair game. **** the lives of a some nobodies when people like Barnaby Joyce needs some more time to rort the system.

Maybe, maybe not.

It’s a massive problem for the world not just Australia and things are likely to get tougher, I don’t see anyone being receptive to the movement of millions upon millions of people.

 

[gringo2011]

Maybe, maybe not.

It’s a massive problem for the world not just Australia and things are likely to get tougher, I don’t see anyone being receptive to the movement of millions upon millions of people.

If the west didn't keep destroying countries then the refugees would not want to leave. Syria was one of the jewels of the Middle East with stable government and religious freedom. Now it's half destroyed. If the west hadn't played politics in the region we wouldn't have so many leaving. The ones where they have really horrible regimes seem to get let off while ones with natural resources get our "help".

 

[VDS66]

America and it's allies have helped Iraq by levelling their country and killing 200,000 their citizens to save them from a despot, same for Syria, Libya and Afganistan. Then we get all these ingrates storming our borders wanting to get away from our help. ******* campaigners should send us gifts instead of their children.

We even took their oil to help them.out. ******* ingrates.