Jumping the queue
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which illegal immigrant policy is the least worst? |
| Abbott's |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Howard's |
|
16% |
[ 3 ] |
| Gillard's |
|
38% |
[ 7 ] |
| Rudd's |
|
11% |
[ 2 ] |
| Brown's |
|
33% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^
When you do get back I'd be happy to explore that issue you raised about skilled migration.
I see that as an appropriate stop gap, but nothing more. I work in health, we hire doctors and nurses from overseas. Why?
There's a number of factors and I'll confess I don't have my head around all of them. Some of them are:
No of uni placements
Supply and demand (demand is greater than supply atm so people get picky
Interest in going into these jobs.
Interestingly, the other skilled shortage comes in the trades area.
The reason why that's interesting is that Doctors, Nurses and tradesmen have the strongest union/Professional association's in the country IMO. (AMA; ANF; ETU/CWU/etc.)
Part of the brief for a good professional association is to make sure that demand for the professional services is always greater than supply. There are a number of reasons why skilled migration can be required, are artificial shortages partly caused by professional associations a key contributor?
Discuss.
 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dr Pie wrote: | [quote="Tannin"]Dr Pie, [b]why[/b] it is "obscene" to discuss the disgraceful way our current refugee policy discriminates against the poor in favour of the rich? What have you got against poor people who cannot afford to get to Indonesia and stump up thousands for a smuggler? Why do you want to give preference to the relatively wealthy refugees on boats and leave the poor ones to rot in camps? That's what you are arguing for.[/quote]
1. Pied Piper has already explained to you why it doesn't discriminate against the poor.
2. In countries with a coast the refugees, facing death, are saving their lives getting on the boats. The people in camps in third countries have avoided death.
3. The boat people are very rarely any richer than the people in the camps. The really wealthy ones go by plane and they too may be in fear of certain death.
4. You have put the question wrongly Tannin. It isn't discriminating in favour of the rich or the poor. It is safe, privileged, people from wealthy countries discriminating between groups of desperate people. Effectively, courtesy of dog whistling politicians like Abbott and scumbag journalists like Jones, sentencing people to death because of their own racist fears.
I am not accusing you or those on this thread who agree with you of racism, but given the figures that Piper and pietillidie have published which show the relatively small number of refugees we take, the only reason that Abbott and Gillard are taking such a hard line is that they know it appeals to scared little racists out in voter land. |
I have been busy growing my mind. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dr Pie wrote: | | the only reason that Abbott and Gillard are taking such a hard line is that they know it appeals to scared little racists out in voter land. |
I think that is condescending crap.
On one hand you say this, | Quote: | | I am not accusing you or those on this thread who agree with you of racism, |
and then effectively recant and call us scared little racists.
You have personal experience, as does Pied Piper, which I respect but doesn't mean I agree with you.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Dr Pie
Dr Pie
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
When you do get back I'd be happy to explore that issue you raised about skilled migration.
I see that as an appropriate stop gap, but nothing more. I work in health, we hire doctors and nurses from overseas. Why?
There's a number of factors and I'll confess I don't have my head around all of them. Some of them are:
No of uni placements
Supply and demand (demand is greater than supply atm so people get picky
Interest in going into these jobs.
Interestingly, the other skilled shortage comes in the trades area.
The reason why that's interesting is that Doctors, Nurses and tradesmen have the strongest union/Professional association's in the country IMO. (AMA; ANF; ETU/CWU/etc.)
Part of the brief for a good professional association is to make sure that demand for the professional services is always greater than supply. There are a number of reasons why skilled migration can be required, are artificial shortages partly caused by professional associations a key contributor?
Discuss.
|
The AMA is a conributor because it lobbies for fixed numbers of intake of students. The Trade Unions of skilled workers are not. They would like more members and have lobbied governments for more apprentice training.
Modern employers do not like to take apprentices because it costs (you have to train them when they couldbe working. They would prefer to acquire trdaespeople that someone else, here or overseas has trained. In the past this problem was solved by large Government monopolies taking on large numbers of apprentices. The PMG (Telstra + Australia Post) the SEC (Electricity) The Railways, the Gas Company, MMBW (Water and sewerage) QANTAS and TAA, all trained hundreds of apprentices over the years. All are now broken up into smaller companies (except QANTAS) and all are privatised (except water and sewage) None of them train significant numbers oof apprentices.
_________________
Born and raised in Black and White |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dr Pie wrote: | | 1. Pied Piper has already explained to you why it doesn't discriminate against the poor. |
No he hasn't. He hasn't even come close. In fact, unless I have missed something somewhere in this very long thread, he has not even addressed the question. For clarity, I'll repeat it:
We have a refugee quota.
Every illegal arrival that we take reduces the number of places available to others (* see note below).
The illegal arrivals are all wealthy enough to have bought air tickets or passage with a people smuggler - that's some serious dollars. Every other refugee - the ones who do not have that sort of money available - is pushed to the back of the queue.
You can't get a clearer case of discrimination than that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* PP claims that this reduction in the number of places available to other refugees is artificial - i.e., that it is simply an artifact of government policy. Obviously, this argument is absurd, and I haven't wasted any time considering it. But for the record, I will invite readers to consider the alternatives: there are only two.
1: You support a fixed refugee quota, and the illegal arrivals arrivals use up part of that quota.
2: You do not support a quota.
There is no third option. It is absurd to claim that you support a quota, but then also claim that we should take all refugees arriving here uninvited.
A limited number + an unlimited number = an unlimited number. No ifs, no buts, no question.
Either you support a quota or you don't. If you do (and posters like PP claim that they do) then it is impossible to accept an unknown and unlimited number of uninvited extra arrivals without either subtracting their number from the quota, or else abandoning the idea of a quota completely.
The feeble reply to this point seems to be "but it isn't many extra people". I say "feeble" because the number of extra arrivals remains relatively small only for so long as there are strong deterrents in place - deterrents of the kind that people like Pied Piper object to strongly. (As do I, in the main, as it happens.) As examples, I'll mention the probability of lengthy detention, offshore processing, uncertainty as to the likelihood of gaining long-term entrance, significant danger of drowning, of being ripped off and giving all your money to a scammer, of arrest in some intermediate country. All of these things act to restrict the flow of refugees. Take those things away (as the self-appointed "refugee advocates" suggest) and you very quickly see a massive increase in the number arriving. For proof, look at the Rudd Government's experience. Much as Rudd tried to pretend that it was just coincidence that arrivals skyrocketed after he moved to (partially) humanise the system, Blind Freddy knows that it wasn't. The only thing keeping the flow of people to our shores as small as it is is the cruel policies of our various governments.
It would be far less cruel to stop pretending: simply close the door to all unauthorised arrivals, and take proper steps to allow a flow of genuine refugees direct from places closer to their original homes. That would save a great many lives. And be much fairer, of course.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Dr Pie
Dr Pie
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Dr Pie wrote: | | the only reason that Abbott and Gillard are taking such a hard line is that they know it appeals to scared little racists out in voter land. |
I think that is condescending crap.
On one hand you say this, | Quote: | | I am not accusing you or those on this thread who agree with you of racism, |
and then effectively recant and call us scared little racists.
You have personal experience, as does Pied Piper, which I respect but doesn't mean I agree with you. |
I was hoping you wouldn't take it that way. The difference is that you and Tannin have not been conducting the debate around "changes to our way of life" "swamped with foriegners" "minorities in our own country" or "border control" These I think are dog whistles to scared little racists.
A disagreement about the best way to handle refugees doesn't have to be racist although I still think it can be the safe and priviged sitting in judgement on the lives of the desperate.
_________________
Born and raised in Black and White |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dr Pie wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | ^
When you do get back I'd be happy to explore that issue you raised about skilled migration.
I see that as an appropriate stop gap, but nothing more. I work in health, we hire doctors and nurses from overseas. Why?
There's a number of factors and I'll confess I don't have my head around all of them. Some of them are:
No of uni placements
Supply and demand (demand is greater than supply atm so people get picky
Interest in going into these jobs.
Interestingly, the other skilled shortage comes in the trades area.
The reason why that's interesting is that Doctors, Nurses and tradesmen have the strongest union/Professional association's in the country IMO. (AMA; ANF; ETU/CWU/etc.)
Part of the brief for a good professional association is to make sure that demand for the professional services is always greater than supply. There are a number of reasons why skilled migration can be required, are artificial shortages partly caused by professional associations a key contributor?
Discuss.
|
The AMA is a conributor because it lobbies for fixed numbers of intake of students. The Trade Unions of skilled workers are not. They would like more members and have lobbied governments for more apprentice training.
Modern employers do not like to take apprentices because it costs (you have to train them when they couldbe working. They would prefer to acquire trdaespeople that someone else, here or overseas has trained. In the past this problem was solved by large Government monopolies taking on large numbers of apprentices. The PMG (Telstra + Australia Post) the SEC (Electricity) The Railways, the Gas Company, MMBW (Water and sewerage) QANTAS and TAA, all trained hundreds of apprentices over the years. All are now broken up into smaller companies (except QANTAS) and all are privatised (except water and sewage) None of them train significant numbers oof apprentices. |
You take a narrow view IMO.
yes those organisations all trained hundreds of apprentices in how to become union delegates but the employment environment is significantly different to that in the 70's-80's.
Modern employers are not bothered about taking on apprentices, forget paying them to attend school, they get 4 years work from someone on half the hourly rate of a labourer.
The question is, why does it take a 4 year apprenticeship to learn how to be a chippie/sparky/turd burgler? The answer is, it doesn't. The whole thing is an IR hangover from the 19th century, straight from the protectorates and demarcations of professional associations.
(Disclaimer - I worked for Telecom/Telstra and worked at the Training section in 1985-6 and I have a son who is an apprentice).
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pied Piper 
Joined: 20 May 2003
Location: Pig City
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | [* PP claims that this reduction in the number of places available to other refugees is artificial - i.e., that it is simply an artifact of government policy. Obviously, this argument is absurd, and I haven't wasted any time considering it. But for the record, I will invite readers to consider the alternatives: there are only two.
1: You support a fixed refugee quota, and the illegal arrivals arrivals use up part of that quota.
2: You do not support a quota.
There is no third option. It is absurd to claim that you support a quota, but then also claim that we should take all refugees arriving here uninvited. |
I said I would attempt to stay out of the thread but I cannot let this pass. For the record, Tannin, I support option 1; however, there is a significant caveat to what you have written, which I have made clear from page one: asylum seekers are not "illegal arrivals". Our government - particularly the previous government - is guilty of calling them that, but it is a lie, pure and simple.
As stated already, a person who is being persecuted is legally entitled to seek asylum in a country that is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. To put it another way: asylum seekers are committing no crime. If they were, they would be on trial, but they are not; they are waiting to have their claims assessed.
This is why mandatory detention is so odious, being in flagrant breach of the important (and ancient) legal doctrine of habeas corpus - a right we take for granted in most civilised democracies worthy of the name. And, remember, the vast majority of onshore arrivals in Australia are found to be genuine refugees.
I can happily live with the fact that we have different opinions on this difficult subject, and in particular how to solve the problem, because there are no easy answers. However, I would prefer to have my arguments represented correctly! 
_________________
"The greatest thing that could happen to the nation is when we get rid of all the media. Then we could live in peace and tranquillity, and no one would know anything." - Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dr Pie wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | ^
When you do get back I'd be happy to explore that issue you raised about skilled migration.
I see that as an appropriate stop gap, but nothing more. I work in health, we hire doctors and nurses from overseas. Why?
There's a number of factors and I'll confess I don't have my head around all of them. Some of them are:
No of uni placements
Supply and demand (demand is greater than supply atm so people get picky
Interest in going into these jobs.
Interestingly, the other skilled shortage comes in the trades area.
The reason why that's interesting is that Doctors, Nurses and tradesmen have the strongest union/Professional association's in the country IMO. (AMA; ANF; ETU/CWU/etc.)
Part of the brief for a good professional association is to make sure that demand for the professional services is always greater than supply. There are a number of reasons why skilled migration can be required, are artificial shortages partly caused by professional associations a key contributor?
Discuss.
8) :wink: |
The AMA is a conributor because it lobbies for fixed numbers of intake of students. The Trade Unions of skilled workers are not. They would like more members and have lobbied governments for more apprentice training.
Modern employers do not like to take apprentices because it costs (you have to train them when they couldbe working. They would prefer to acquire trdaespeople that someone else, here or overseas has trained. In the past this problem was solved by large Government monopolies taking on large numbers of apprentices. The PMG (Telstra + Australia Post) the SEC (Electricity) The Railways, the Gas Company, MMBW (Water and sewerage) QANTAS and TAA, all trained hundreds of apprentices over the years. All are now broken up into smaller companies (except QANTAS) and all are privatised (except water and sewage) None of them train significant numbers oof apprentices. |
Dr Pie, 100% correct. The AMA do have strong rules in place to limit numbers.
The trades have been privatised+++ (Thanks Jeff Kennett only to be followed by their cousins in the Labour party. The money in terms of training apprentices is no longer there. Like maintenance, the privatised companies have little interest in funding the training of apprentices. (Thank you free market)
Apprentices in part now come in via overseas students doing courses that we don't need & then in my experience mainly to gain citizenship because they've completed a course from dodgy private education colleges. So the money from the private fee paying students (inextricably linked to Uni overseas full fee paying students) makes it difficult for goverment to shift policy - like gambling they & the uni's / colleges become dependent on it.
I have worked with students of these courses who actively tell me this. This is not research but has been my experience.
If you want to limit migration & take control little Johhny's policy of bringing in the students fee paying etc to do the courses in so called demand areas (then not wanting to work in the same said course) tyhen change these loopholes & stop making so easy to come here on the false pretexts. These are huge loopholes in our system.
In terms of nurses - its basically a female & underfunded profession. Governements of all persuasions have been poor in terms of the nursing labour workforce particularly in terms of workforce planning. Not at all because of the Nuring Unions - quite the opposite. The average age of Nurses is in the late 40's like teachers. The quota as it were is externally controlled from the ANF. The ANF would love to have more Uni's providing training for Nursing. (The working conditions of Nurses also needs to be explored but that is another issue)
In summary the only place union control has real power is through the most powerful union the AMA. Nothing to do with the ANF nor the other trade unions per se.
Dr Pie wrote:
the only reason that Abbott and Gillard are taking such a hard line is that they know it appeals to scared little racists out in voter land.
Got it in one Dr Pie.
The fear of voters has been expolited by Howard, taken on by Abbott (appropriated from Hanson) amplified by News Limited & now joined by Gillard. Rudd whatever one thought of him certainly said he did not want a race to the bottom with respect to the debate on the so called boat people.
My disclaimer: (I've worked in workforce planning, management, industrial relations, teaching & nursing etc. I've worked for NGO's, Uni's, Health, the old CSV. Taught at TAFE & Uni. I've worked in institutions for the disabled, built community housing for the disabled before, worked in direct care, with the disabled & the psychiatrically unwell in acute psychiatry and worked in Policy units (the most disabled of all) in Head Office).
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:11 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dr Pie wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Dr Pie wrote: | | the only reason that Abbott and Gillard are taking such a hard line is that they know it appeals to scared little racists out in voter land. |
I think that is condescending crap.
On one hand you say this, | Quote: | | I am not accusing you or those on this thread who agree with you of racism, |
and then effectively recant and call us scared little racists.
You have personal experience, as does Pied Piper, which I respect but doesn't mean I agree with you. |
I was hoping you wouldn't take it that way. The difference is that you and Tannin have not been conducting the debate around "changes to our way of life" "swamped with foriegners" "minorities in our own country" or "border control" These I think are dog whistles to scared little racists.
A disagreement about the best way to handle refugees doesn't have to be racist although I still think it can be the safe and priviged sitting in judgement on the lives of the desperate. |
OK, I accept your argument, I still don't agree.
In regard to the privileged bit, absolutely yes.
I'm privileged to live in this country, no doubt.
More people would like to live here that we (as a country) are prepared to let in. Also no doubt.
So we sit in judgement.
Not many supreme court judges are doing it tough financially, that doesn't prevent them from sitting in judgement on those less fortunate.
I love this country and migration made it what it is now. My Great great grandfather came here by boat, in chains, at English insistence.
Many other have come here and proved that this country is the land of opportunity for those willing to have a go. We have the concept of "A fair go" enshrined in our Industrial Relations culture.
How many people on this board were either born over seas or are 1st generation Aussies of migrant stock? I'm guessing quite a few.
I will not be made to feel guilty or suffer emotional blackmail about the lives others. Thousands of people die each day around the world. Maybe 10's of thousands; 100's of thousands even. Should I mourn for all of them? I don't know them. I care in an abstract kind of way but that's it
Shit happens, people get sick, people die. Funnily enough it can happen to all races; colours and religions.
My argument remains constant - we decide who comes here; we decide how. There is a pathway to enter the country, some may call it a queue. It's not perfect but it exists which is more than a lot of other countries can say.
Enter by the pathway or not at all, try and come in by boat because you can afford to and you get sent back. The way is closed.
I have a feeling that i've just posted a rambling rant but....wtf...no one's going to post an 8 minute audio of this and I CBF doing review and edit.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: |
In terms of nurses - its basically a female & underfunded profession. Governements of all persuasions have been poor in terms of the nursing labour workforce particularly in terms of workforce planning. Not at all because of the Nuring Unions - quite the opposite. The average age of Nurses is in the late 40's like teachers. The quota as it were is externally controlled from the ANF. The ANF would love to have more Uni's providing training for Nursing. (The working conditions of Nurses also needs to be explored but that is another issue)
|
In terms of professional standing the ANF lobbied very very hard against the proposal to have TAFE colleges offering Div 1 Nursing courses. That they were successful perpetuates an unnecessary professional constraint which restricts the numbers of newly qualified nurses.
Having worked with them and against them, I have nothing but the utmost professional respect for the ANF in a way that I do not respect any other union. That doesn't mean you can paint a dog and call it a cat.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | But for the record, I will invite readers to consider the alternatives: there are only two.
1: You support a fixed refugee quota, and the illegal arrivals arrivals use up part of that quota.
2: You do not support a quota.
There is no third option. It is absurd to claim that you support a quota, but then also claim that we should take all refugees arriving here uninvited.
A limited number + an unlimited number = an unlimited number. No ifs, no buts, no question.
Either you support a quota or you don't. If you do (and posters like PP claim that they do) then it is impossible to accept an unknown and unlimited number of uninvited extra arrivals without either subtracting their number from the quota, or else abandoning the idea of a quota completely.
|
1. But what if the total number of legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly is low enough to be considered separate from the quota?
2. What if the cost of not abiding by international agreements is greater than the cost of accepting all legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly?
3. What if the cost of the damage to national branding by not accepting all legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly is greater than the cost of accepting all legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly?
4. What if the cost to of the damage to international relations and regional leverage by not accepting all legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly is greater than the cost of accepting all legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly?
5. What if the sum of all costs of not accepting all legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly is greater than the sum of all costs of accepting all legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Just made some ninja changes to that if you're viewing an old version.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: |
In terms of nurses - its basically a female & underfunded profession. Governements of all persuasions have been poor in terms of the nursing labour workforce particularly in terms of workforce planning. Not at all because of the Nuring Unions - quite the opposite. The average age of Nurses is in the late 40's like teachers. The quota as it were is externally controlled from the ANF. The ANF would love to have more Uni's providing training for Nursing. (The working conditions of Nurses also needs to be explored but that is another issue)
|
In terms of professional standing the ANF lobbied very very hard against the proposal to have TAFE colleges offering Div 1 Nursing courses. That they were successful perpetuates an unnecessary professional constraint which restricts the numbers of newly qualified nurses.
Having worked with them and against them, I have nothing but the utmost professional respect for the ANF in a way that I do not respect any other union. That doesn't mean you can paint a dog and call it a cat. |
Yes you're right but the context is wrong.
In a wider context the ANF wants the training at Uni's not at a TAFE. They'll sure have those places & more at UNI's not at TAFE's because they fought so hard over so many years to get properly credentialized through university (sorry about the word) & TAFE is seen as the thin end of the wedge, the slippery slope to lesser academic / professional recognition. So their fight with the Government is not related to numbers or quotas but due to professional standing & recongnition & wanting to keep all training at Uni's.
Universties have significant research capabilities & support options - doctoral & post doctoral - all Nursing course at Uni are suppported by these facililities as it is for other disciplines.
This is not merely that Nurses want recognition but a ploy by the Goverment to take nursing back to manual labour. Understandably the ANF was pissed of +++ & opposed as they should the TAFE model. Its merely cost cutting & being applied to Nursing because it is largely a female profession.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | 1. But what if the total number of legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly is low enough to be considered separate from the quota? |
I already dealt with this furphy. If we simply allow all comers, then they will all come. Countless thousands. The current number is artificially depressed because of a range of rather nasty government policies (such as incarceration and offshore processing and so on) and by other artifacts of the illegal immigration process (such as leaky boats).
| pietillidie wrote: |
2, 3, 4, and 5 What if the cost of not abiding by international agreements is greater than the cost of accepting all legitimate asylum seekers arriving irregularly?
|
1: The contention that these people are arriving here legally, and that we are thus bound to accept them is subject to very significant doubt. The claim that they are directly fleeing from (e.g.) Afganistan is palpably absurd.
2: Nor is it possible to accept the findings of the numerous (very expensive) legal actions as unbiased evidence of the underlying state of affairs. As always, sad cases make bad law.
3: In any case, as Stui says so eloquently, "we decide who comes here; we decide how. There is a pathway to enter the country, some may call it a queue. It's not perfect but it exists which is more than a lot of other countries can say. Enter by the pathway or not at all, try and come in by boat because you can afford to and you get sent back. The way is closed."
4: I have provided powerful arguments to demonstrate that the net humanitarian impact of the welcome-the-boats strategy espoused by several here is negative - i.e., that it does significantly less to benefit those in need than the policy I have outlined, and in particular that it is horribly discriminatory and must be rejected for that reason. Any nation with a shred of moral courage would reject the emotive but (mostly) false arguments put forward by the well-intentioned bleeding heart crowd, and focus on a policy that provides the maximum relief from suffering with the minimum possible discrimination against particular groups (such as the relatively poor). But then Australia hasn't had any moral courage worth speaking of for many, many years, so I suppose we will just blunder along with various assorted tragic variations on the current idiotic mess.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
