Jumping the queue

[HAL]

Aw. Perhaps I would. Surely there are a few exceptions. I can enjoy almost any conversation. ""? Above all I'm asking what we are afraid of? Thanks for pointing no difference but he or she was proud of that out. Compare that to below all he or she'm asking what we are afraid of.

[Tannin]

I agree that "freeloaders" is not an appropriate term to use. It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of immigrants to Australia from the relatively poor countries we are discussing here are willing to work hard to earn a keep. This makes a nonsense of the term "freeloader". Most immigrants from these places can expect to acquire significantly greater wealth here than they could aspire to in their country of origin. An unfortunate side effect of this fact is the confusion it causes: are people coming here to get rich? Or are they coming here to escape persecution? There is no simple answer, no generalisation will cover all or even most of the cases, and it is worth noting that some arrivals have given up considerable wealth and social standing in their home country to start again with almost nothing. Equally, the relative wealth of this country makes us a prime target for foreigners on the make, a nice, fat, soft target for people willing to lie, cheat, steal, or do whatever it takes to get in. Only a complete fool would deny that this is a significant factor in arrivals on our shores - but one would need to be equally blind in the other eye in order to pretend that it is by any means the only factor.

Pied Piper, continuing his not-so-subtle smear campaign against all who disagree with his position, claims that he is seeing "a lack of willingness/ability to put ourselves in the shoes of others". Nonsense. What he is seeing, at least for my part, is a lack of willingness to identify with the most visible part of the problem at the expense of the vastly larger and more significant main part of the problem; a lack of willingness to see only the (predominantly well-off, educated, middle-class) people who can afford to buy a passage to Indonesia and stump up the money for the people smuggler - $3000 and up is the amount usually quoted, a vast sum in many countries - and to not see the teeming thousands upon thousands of people who are in every bit as much danger at home, are every bit as deserving of our help, and who do not have the resources to help themselves.

Let us return to some common ground for a moment:

[watt price tully]

[Pied Piper]

watt price tully, yes as stated the story appeared in The Age and the SMH. I may write a new version of that post for a follow-up I think.

Tannin, I'm confused. I don't know why you keep trying to distort my argument into something it's not. I will reply to you at greater length separately.

[Tannin]

^ Dare I point out that vultures don't, as a rule, eat birds? Hobbies and goshawks and Peregrine Falcons eat birds. Vultures eat .... oh. OK. Then I won't point it out.

[Tannin]

PP, you don't need to reply at even greater length if I am in fact "distorting your argument", you need to reply with some clarity - for I have done my level best to report the relevant parts of your argument as exactly as I can.

What, exactly, is your problem with my post? Where do you believe I have "distorted" what you have said?

[Tannin]

Oh, you will doubtless object to my characterisation of your "smear campaign". Don't bother trying to clarify that bit. Just take it as read that I am getting a bit tired of arguing what I believe to be a much fairer, more ethical policy in this thread, only to see my opponents constantly laying claim to ownership of the high moral ground. It gets old.

[Pied Piper]

[Pied Piper]

[David]

[Pied Piper]

[David]

[London Dave]

Excellent article.......

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/catch-and-skill-our-own-20100712-107y4.html

[Culprit]

Pied Piper, Genuine need? Great term. Paying 15k - 30k to get here is not someone I would call in genuine need. Desperate yes as they want a better way of life. That should not mean that they gain entry on that basis

The term "Refugee" needs a complete overhaul.

I agree the numbers are small and overblown by the media.

In saying that, we do not have the work for people with no skills, we cannot accommodate the people that are currently here due to the lack of housing which is reflected by the cost of housing to buy and rent. Our social security system is propped up by tax payers who are aging yearly. Australia is 70% desert. We do not have the infrastructure to cope with a larger population as no Government builds for tomorrow. We have Governments that simply pump more money into private education than public education. We have a hospital system that cannot cope now. We have an aged care system run by people who's aim is to make money not care for the aged. Dumping people (and that is what we do) here in low socioeconomic areas and then telling them to fend for themselves is not a recipe for quality living, it's a recipe for racially based violence and crime. Moving the problem from one country to another dos not solve the issue.

Fix their problems in their countries and that doesn't mean occupation and placing puppets in Governments to do what we or the US want. History shows it doesn't work all it does is cost lives. Western Governments love using countries for cheap labour but heaven forbid they actually increase their quality of living because that would in turn increase the cost of Labour.

You can throw racist and xenophobia at me, it's just a cop out. Anyone who says no is a xenophobe or a racist. I would say I am a realist.

The problem here is Capitalism as a whole. That means you simply need poor people because without them you can't get rich.

[pietillidie]

Tannin you still insist on conflating "refugees" and "destitution". The international agreements arose in response to the displacement of peoples in Europe under tyranny; poverty was a secondary matter, just as it was say in the Balkans in the 90s. So your wealth proxy is historically absurd. You can't use such a gross error as a basis for understanding the problem.

You then move from a misunderstanding of what a refugee is to a trivial interpretation of the word "directly", as if an agreement to mitigate mass murder and genocide is so short-sighted as to not notice that neighboring countries may not be able to solve the problem at all. What is this, a childish word game or an attempted solution?

To quote the very rational UNHCR clarification that you so flippantly dismiss once more:

"4. The expression �coming directly� in Article 31(1), covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept �coming directly� and each case must be judged on its merits. Similarly, given the special situation of asylum-seekers, in particular the effects of trauma, language problems, lack of information, previous experiences which often result in a suspicion of those in authority, feelings of insecurity, and the fact that these and other circumstances may vary enormously from one asylum-seeker to another, there is no time limit which can be mechanically applied or associated with the expression �without delay�. The expression �good cause�, requires a consideration of the circumstances under which the asylum-seeker fled. The term �asylum-seeker� in these guidelines applies to those whose claims are being considered under an admissibility or pre-screening procedure as well as those who are being considered under refugee status determination procedures. It also includes those exercising their right to seek judicial and/or administrative review of their asylum request."

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3c2b3f844.pdf

It doesn't matter how people arrive; you have to asses their claims because refugee status is not about wealth and it's not about geography or movement. It's about threat of death - it has never been otherwise.

That's not to say I have the solution, but Tannin's redefinition of refugee certainly isn't it.