Asylum immigrants - Green Light

Quite a good piece that is well worth a read regardless of political leaning, I will preface it by saying that it's written by Sarah Joseph who is director for Human Rights Law at Monash University but nevertheless it's more neutral than a Fairfax or Guardian piece.

A few key points she makes is that there isn't a mythical queue for asylum seekers

But refugee camps don’t operate like queues – it isn’t first-come first-served. If it was, apparently it would take a refugee arriving in the “queue” now 170 years to reach the front. The average stay in a refugee camp is 17 years. So many stay much longer and even die there.

Click to expand...

And another fallacy that most boat arrivals are economic refugees

More than 90% of the asylum seekers who have arrived by boat in Australia have been recognised as refugees

Click to expand...

The problem with the piece is like all who are opposed to turning back the boats she offers no viable alternative of what to do with those that want to arrive by boat after we''ve reached our increased intake that she suggests. Her suggestion seems to be that every country needs to lift their game and take more refugees until the 'queues' are empty but this obviously isn't a practical solution.

http://castancentre.com/2015/07/27/operation-sovereign-borders-and-the-drownings-argument/

overhang said:

The problem with the piece is like all who are opposed to turning back the boats she offers no viable alternative of what to do with those that want to arrive by boat after we''ve reached our increased intake that she suggests. Her suggestion seems to be that every country needs to lift their game and take more refugees until the 'queues' are empty but this obviously isn't a practical solution.

Click to expand...

Life was much easier for us when we had a stringent immigration program. None of us knew how many people clamoured ashore in Darwin and we didn't care because were sure of ourselves and British might.

The more we travel and show off how good we have it, the more of the indigenous will want to have a piece of the action.

overhang said:

Quite a good piece that is well worth a read regardless of political leaning, I will preface it by saying that it's written by Sarah Joseph who is director for Human Rights Law at Monash University but nevertheless it's more neutral than a Fairfax or Guardian piece.

A few key points she makes is that there isn't a mythical queue for asylum seekers

And another fallacy that most boat arrivals are economic refugees

The problem with the piece is like all who are opposed to turning back the boats she offers no viable alternative of what to do with those that want to arrive by boat after we''ve reached our increased intake that she suggests. Her suggestion seems to be that every country needs to lift their game and take more refugees until the 'queues' are empty but this obviously isn't a practical solution.

http://castancentre.com/2015/07/27/operation-sovereign-borders-and-the-drownings-argument/

Click to expand...

Solution is quite simple: Don't invade other countries or undermine its gov't; Don't bribe or force trade deals that destroy their economy.

Since that's not going to happen, then maybe be a bit more generous and help those displaced by war, famine and economic ruins.



If we take a big picture, long term view, the refugee crisis is not just a humanitarian and border security issue for the West. Take it a bit further and it's an economic and survival issue for both the rich and the poor - and it has very little to do with refugees coming to terrorise and take welfare away.

If enough countries are destroyed, by war and by economic policies/free trade deals, who will have enough to buy our stuff? We're supposed to be out there creating markets. Markets aren't going to be around if the masses are displaced and forced to live and die in refugee camps.


Refugees aren't the crisis, they're symptom of much deeper crises. And generosity will only go so far - often it doesn't go anywhere but towards building better fences and efforts to demonise the poor and the helpless so our conscience is clear when we say go back to where you came from.

So short term is to shelter refugees, longer term might be to not bomb their home or cause global warming and trade imbalances.


We live in a globalised world... what happen to those on the other side will affect us. If not directly then indirectly by other means. Take a look at the US banning import of fresh vegies from Mexico or some South American country today. A few Americans got real sick from eating fresh salad from farms where there are no toilet and sanitation - forcing the workers to take care of business where they work, and some of that business got into the vegies.

luutzu said:

Solution is quite simple: Don't invade other countries or undermine its gov't; Don't bribe or force trade deals that destroy their economy.

Since that's not going to happen, then maybe be a bit more generous and help those displaced by war, famine and economic ruins.



If we take a big picture, long term view, the refugee crisis is not just a humanitarian and border security issue for the West. Take it a bit further and it's an economic and survival issue for both the rich and the poor - and it has very little to do with refugees coming to terrorise and take welfare away.

If enough countries are destroyed, by war and by economic policies/free trade deals, who will have enough to buy our stuff? We're supposed to be out there creating markets. Markets aren't going to be around if the masses are displaced and forced to live and die in refugee camps.


Refugees aren't the crisis, they're symptom of much deeper crises. And generosity will only go so far - often it doesn't go anywhere but towards building better fences and efforts to demonise the poor and the helpless so our conscience is clear when we say go back to where you came from.

So short term is to shelter refugees, longer term might be to not bomb their home or cause global warming and trade imbalances.


We live in a globalised world... what happen to those on the other side will affect us. If not directly then indirectly by other means. Take a look at the US banning import of fresh vegies from Mexico or some South American country today. A few Americans got real sick from eating fresh salad from farms where there are no toilet and sanitation - forcing the workers to take care of business where they work, and some of that business got into the vegies.

Click to expand...

I suppose it boils back to the basic problem, there is too many humans on Earth.
The more that are saved, the more the problem compounds, how do we house, feed and save everyone? When there are twice as many people, than the planet can support?

sptrawler said:

I suppose it boils back to the basic problem, there is too many humans on Earth.
The more that are saved, the more the problem compounds, how do we house, feed and save everyone? When there are twice as many people, than the planet can support?

Click to expand...

Wealth redistribution is one

Just educate people that having a few extra zeros on your account isn't going to do you or your family much good. After 7 zeros, what good does a billion or two do for you anyway... it does a heck of a lot to those living on $5 a day or less.

If the billionaires think a bit harder, it'll not only make them feel better but will also protect what they have. Tacitus, way back then, observed that the major cause of warfare has always been due to extreme inequality. Having six Australians owning the same wealth as the bottom 20% Australians is going towards that road to ruin. Having tax codes where 76 Aussies earning over a million, totaling some $179 million in income, and managed to legally pay only some $79 in taxes between them [yea, I thought it's $79 million too] is wrong.

---

But let say we want to encourage entrepreneurship and want people who won't innovate if the tax is higher to innovate... then let's invest in education and innovation, make the tax system and rethink economic policies that encourages human ingenuity - i.e. move away from these funny accounting and "growth" based on share buybacks and other financial gimmicks; encourage real R&D, discourage rent-seeking tendencies of monopolies.

I think the 18th century economist, Malthus [?], have the reached the same conclusion as you - that within a few generations humanity will face catastrophe between there won't be enough food.

Then came the steam engine and the industrial revolution.

So it's either control population by war and famine, or innovate. Either be poor ourselves and force others to be poorer and more desperate that they'd work for much less so we poor can buy cheaper goods... or maybe be richer by paying them more so they can buy our stuff and we're all getting better deals.

What we've been seeing over past 40 years is very regressive - it's quite nasty. The people in the first world fare much better than those in the third world, but the world in general is going towards disaster - and record numbers of refugees fleeing their homeland is one symptom of that decline.

luutzu said:

Wealth redistribution is one

Just educate people that having a few extra zeros on your account isn't going to do you or your family much good. After 7 zeros, what good does a billion or two do for you anyway... it does a heck of a lot to those living on $5 a day or less.

If the billionaires think a bit harder, it'll not only make them feel better but will also protect what they have. Tacitus, way back then, observed that the major cause of warfare has always been due to extreme inequality. Having six Australians owning the same wealth as the bottom 20% Australians is going towards that road to ruin. Having tax codes where 76 Aussies earning over a million, totaling some $179 million in income, and managed to legally pay only some $79 in taxes between them [yea, I thought it's $79 million too] is wrong.

---

But let say we want to encourage entrepreneurship and want people who won't innovate if the tax is higher to innovate... then let's invest in education and innovation, make the tax system and rethink economic policies that encourages human ingenuity - i.e. move away from these funny accounting and "growth" based on share buybacks and other financial gimmicks; encourage real R&D, discourage rent-seeking tendencies of monopolies.

I think the 18th century economist, Malthus [?], have the reached the same conclusion as you - that within a few generations humanity will face catastrophe between there won't be enough food.

Then came the steam engine and the industrial revolution.

So it's either control population by war and famine, or innovate. Either be poor ourselves and force others to be poorer and more desperate that they'd work for much less so we poor can buy cheaper goods... or maybe be richer by paying them more so they can buy our stuff and we're all getting better deals.

What we've been seeing over past 40 years is very regressive - it's quite nasty. The people in the first world fare much better than those in the third world, but the world in general is going towards disaster - and record numbers of refugees fleeing their homeland is one symptom of that decline.

Click to expand...

I think your compassion and enthusiasm is honourable. However I can't help but wonder what would happen if we saved every person living in poverty, then they go on to have four children each, who saves them?
Africa has a population of 1.1 billion, how many do you think Africa can support? Come to think of it how many should Australia take? 50 or 100 million or so?
Let's not forget 1.1 billion is 1000,000,000, there's plenty to go around, that doesn't include India's 1.2 billion or SE Asia.
I'm not saying we shouldn't help, but some form of birth control may be more effective. China seems to be the only one applying any control.

sptrawler said:

I think your compassion and enthusiasm is honourable. However I can't help but wonder what would happen if we saved every person living in poverty, then they go on to have four children each, who saves them?
Africa has a population of 1.1 billion, how many do you think Africa can support? Come to think of it how many should Australia take? 50 or 100 million or so?
Let's not forget 1.1 billion is 1000,000,000, there's plenty to go around, that doesn't include India's 1.2 billion or SE Asia.
I'm not saying we shouldn't help, but some form of birth control may be more effective. China seems to be the only one applying any control.

Click to expand...

It's not about compassion or some left wing wishlist. I think it's quite practical and serves the same purpose that, I'm assuming, both left and right in politics wanted: a better world.

Population is not a problem, it's the distribution of wealth and inequality that is the problem.

Once people are well off, they will naturally only want to have 2 children... or on a national average, 2.3 or so children.

All society need 2 children per family to simply replace the parents. Productivity and economic growth depends on that number.

China is heading towards economic crisis within next decade because of its one-child policy. Its population is aging and the one-child policy meant the retiring workforce cannot be replaced. Since you can't send the old folks off to sea, a much smaller workforce will now have to support a much bigger aging, sick and retired population.

Research have shown that in desperately poor countries, family size tend to be bigger. But that's often due to family needing extra workforce and also in case the child won't make it. But in slightly richer, and I think it's only a few dollars extra per day richer here, families tend to only have 2 or 2.5 children.

So it is not the third world and their overpopulation that would be the problem.

---

Let take the Walton of WalMart family. If you take $200 billion from them, their lifestyle won't change one bit.

With that $200 billion, hundreds of millions of people could be train and have clean water and some food and some books for years. Imagine how much human creativity and ingenuity could come out from those hundreds of millions of people - not to mention the demand for WalMart stuff.

Helping people, especially on a global scale, isn't just about giving away money or being nice. It's how you grow demand and market to sell your goods and services to.

luutzu said:

I

Helping people, especially on a global scale, isn't just about giving away money or being nice. It's how you grow demand and market to sell your goods and services to.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a great project.

luutzu said:

It's not about compassion or some left wing wishlist. I think it's quite practical and serves the same purpose that, I'm assuming, both left and right in politics wanted: a better world.

Population is not a problem, it's the distribution of wealth and inequality that is the problem.
Helping people, especially on a global scale, isn't just about giving away money or being nice. It's how you grow demand and market to sell your goods and services to.

Click to expand...

I believed as you when I was 20, nice try
then you look at Africa, the rise of Islam and the use of the womb as a weapon;
wealth increases but education does not follow as 50% of population isdenied education access irrespective of wealth.
War and wasteful habits aka tradition means than billions can be endlessly dumped into a bucket with so many holes than except for a few dictators with swiss banks accounts, nothing is left;
If Greece which has seen the birth of democracy and civilisation of the western world can not sort its own mess after billions and billions of support, how do you think it will fare for Ethiopia, somalia or the countries of origin of the current waves of economic migration.
I wish you were right, and it is a very confortable mental position to be in, but the real situation as I lived with migrants in Europe is far far less optimistic, so yes, build walls

sptrawler said:

Sounds like a great project.

Click to expand...

Yea, let's do this! haha

qldfrog said:

I believed as you when I was 20, nice try
then you look at Africa, the rise of Islam and the use of the womb as a weapon;
wealth increases but education does not follow as 50% of population isdenied education access irrespective of wealth.
War and wasteful habits aka tradition means than billions can be endlessly dumped into a bucket with so many holes than except for a few dictators with swiss banks accounts, nothing is left;
If Greece which has seen the birth of democracy and civilisation of the western world can not sort its own mess after billions and billions of support, how do you think it will fare for Ethiopia, somalia or the countries of origin of the current waves of economic migration.
I wish you were right, and it is a very confortable mental position to be in, but the real situation as I lived with migrants in Europe is far far less optimistic, so yes, build walls

Click to expand...

Culture and traditions are somewhat overrated - history has shown such traditions can be change and erased completely over two generations. When I was 5 or 6 years old, I and a few friends believe that to be a King your body must have no scars and scratches, and I thought dam it it's too late for me and that's unfair. Now I think to be King all you need is a lot of money, a strong army and an opportunity

Seriously though... Africa is so poor now has a lot to do with it being colonised and exploited than just it being backward and having witch doctors. When your country have resources but you do not have arms, you're going to get exploited and your people get sold into slavery. Since slavery is frown upon now, other ways to exploit your natural resources is pitting one warlord against another, support and fund ones that do your bidding and break those that tries to think about not following your interests.

Real politiks is quite savage. When imposed on defenseless population it's literally a legalised, approved, version of going out there and get what's valuable by any means without any repercussion.

The current way seems to be that if they kill each other, we'll just sell them more guns. If some of the people are displaced they'll just go to neighbouring countries; if they happen to be close to our borders and some managed to cross into it, we'll just label them as illegal invaders and deal with it as we would criminals; then spend more money to build higher and better borders, put more guards and more guns to protect it.

All great powers, and some even not so great, does this.
It might not be so harmful in the age of cannons or swords and sandles, but in a globalised world with nuclear weapons it's not very smart.

The way politics, empires and big business works is not going to change - that much is certain. But it should.

If we take Australia or the USA and see how money influence politics to get more money and more power... and eventually 1% owns half the country's wealth and 16 million of its children go to bed hungry. Infer that on the globe and it's obvious that countries and people with more money will have more power and with power they will get more money until there's nothing left.

The results will be billions of people living in poverty, massive area that's decimated and in business terms, deteriorating market and slowing in sales and profit - in other words, decline and fall.

But there's nuclear war and global climate catastrophe before this would happen though. So that's the good news.

It's now been a year since a boat has reached Australia.

http://newsroom.border.gov.au/chann...rs/releases/monthly-operational-update-july-3

Some stats on the success of OSB,

Thursday, 06 August 2015

Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB) has effectively rebuffed people smugglers with the month of July marking one year without a successful people smuggling venture to Australia.

Since boat turn-backs began under OSB in December 2013 only one illegal entry vessel has arrived in Australia - in July last year - with the 157 illegal maritime arrivals (IMAs) on board transferred to Nauru.

Click to expand...

“Importantly since December 2013 there have been no lives lost at life at sea in stark contrast to the Labor years when 1200 people died on perilous journeys in unsafe boats,” Mr Dutton said.

Today’s OSB monthly update shows an illegal vessel did attempt to breach Australia’s borders in July, but did not succeed.

“The group of illegal maritime arrivals on board were returned to their country of origin emphasising the ongoing vigilance that is needed to stop the boats and keep them stopped.”

Since December 2013, OSB has safely returned 633 potential illegal arrivals aboard 20 ventures to their countries of departure.

Over the 12 months since the last venture making it to Australia, 235 potential illegal immigrants from eight boats have been returned safely to their countries of departure.

“The Coalition will never allow a return to the days under Labor when 800 boats carrying a human wave of 50,000 IMAs flooded into Australia.

Click to expand...

http://www.minister.border.gov.au/peterdutton/2015/Pages/osb-marks-milestone-year-with-no-boats.aspx

If you have ever desired to see Europe as a tourist for all it's charm of castles, churches , old buildings, culture, food etc. - go now.

Europe is being invaded and the current residents don't seem to care.

Europe is lost and will never be the same.

All the crap of the Middle East and North Africa is being exported to Europe.

RIP Europe.

dutchie said:

If you have ever desired to see Europe as a tourist for all it's charm of castles, churches , old buildings, culture, food etc. - go now.

Europe is being invaded and the current residents don't seem to care.

Europe is lost and will never be the same.

All the crap of the Middle East and North Africa is being exported to Europe.

RIP Europe.

Click to expand...

"Exhausted refugees arrive in Austria"
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e2523a84-53c2-11e5-8642-453585f2cfcd.html#axzz3kruqrp5D


Wait... that's Austria, not Australia.


I admire how Captain Australia thinks... admire because what thinking person could think like this:

So a dead three year-old Syrian refugee is found face down on the beach... that's tragic said our Captain, and the way to prevent that tragedy is to get tough on... on people smugglers of course, and on illegal migrant skipping the queue.

And oh yea, the Team and I are seriously "thinking" about sending the jets over soon to bomb the place they're supposed to be queing in. OK, I guess bombs around or near the queue, not on the queue so it's safe.

luutzu - more deaths at sea you want? Wow. That's a low act.

Saw this on Reddit. l'm glad that the Hungarian PM has come out and said that they don't want anymore Muslims.

Hungarian PM: We don't want more Muslims​

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said that his country does not want to take in large numbers of Muslims, in defence of Hungary's response to the surge in refugees trying to enter the country.

"I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country," Orban told journalists outside the EU headquarters at Brussels.

"We do not like the consequences," he said, referring to the country's 150-year history of Ottoman rule during the 16th and 17th centuries.

Orban said those fleeing conflict in countries such as Syria should not try to cross into Hungary, as he defended the country's decision to erect a fence along its border.

"Please don't come... It's risky to come. We can't guarantee that you will be accepted," Orban said in Brussels, adding that it would not be humane or morally right to "falsify" people's dreams.

"We Hungarians are full of fear, people in Europe are full of fear because they see that the European leaders, among them the prime ministers, are not able to control the situation," Orban said.

Click to expand...

Also, here are the so called 'refugees' throwing water/food away/back at Hungarian police.



So, they have left Syria, passed through Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia and now Hungary, on their way to Germany.....refugees hey? More like welfare chasers.

dutchie said:

If you have ever desired to see Europe as a tourist for all it's charm of castles, churches , old buildings, culture, food etc. - go now.

Europe is being invaded and the current residents don't seem to care.

Europe is lost and will never be the same.

All the crap of the Middle East and North Africa is being exported to Europe.

RIP Europe.

Click to expand...

+1
a bit like in the late 30's when nazis threat was dismissed, and no reaction was ever done;
Obamah talking to the Saudis, Putine still the devil for helping Assad, and one by one islam worst forces are claiming countries;Started with the nasty serbs against the angel kosovo invaders so not new;
But now, after the frontier states have fallen, teh attack is on the fort.

Europe should be on a war foot, not following propaganda bleeding heart manipulation;
Columns of 20/30y old males are overflowing the borders, 75% not even from Syria (please prove me wrong:
these were the figure I could find in left leaving propagandah filled "Le Monde" newspaper yesterday), you are only allowed to see a crying babies and older womens:
the boats crossing from Libya at the rate of 2000 a day are bypassed
only one common point between these invaders:
a religion who wants to see all infidels dead and will never accept european values and way of life;
3 generations of previous such migration has shown it clearly in Europe.
Well done IS your foot soldiers are succeeding;
and at no time will the european leaders ask their people wishes
RIP indeed, and thanks God for the boat policy here, Abbot screwed up absolutely everything else but at least, I might be able to share the same beach as my wife in my old age: poor, broke, but free

Rather interesting how the number of unauthorised arrivals by plane continues to be high,

By boat : 2014 =160 people, 2015 = 4 people
By plane : 2014 - 3121 people

Tisme said:

Rather interesting how the number of unauthorised arrivals by plane continues to be high,

By boat : 2014 =160 people, 2015 = 4 people
By plane : 2014 - 3121 people

Click to expand...

does this count the 'tourists' who forget to leave?
or are these figures just so called tourists who are not allowed in as too suspicious?
In any case, while terrorism and crime risks are still high, these figures will not threaten our society;

qldfrog said:

does this count the 'tourists' who forget to leave?
or are these figures just so called tourists who are not allowed in as too suspicious?
In any case, while terrorism and crime risks are still high, these figures will not threaten our society;

Click to expand...

With planes it's mala fide visa holders and "other".